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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuno (JP H06191413 A).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 19 and 20, Kuno discloses a method of frequency-tuning a plurality of vibration damper assembly (note the abstract) for dampening vibrations in a steering wheel structure (fig. 4),
wherein each vibration damper assembly comprises a mass (24), and a horn plate (1 and 6) having a front side facing towards the mass and a rear side arranged to face towards a vibrating surface of the steering wheel structure (18), said horn plate including mounting openings (note the openings of the plates 1 and 6 where a screw 12 passed through as shown in fig. 4) extending through the horn plate being connectable to said vibrating surface via a plurality of first elastomeric elements (19) so as to be movable in relation to the vibrating surface (18), the plurality of first elastomeric elements (19) being inserted into respective mounting openings; and
wherein said mass (24) is supported by the horn plate (1, 6);
said method comprising frequency-tuning the plurality of vibration damper assemblies to vary vibration frequencies of the vibrating surface by both selecting a stiffness of the first elastomeric elements (19) and selecting a stiffness of a plurality of second elastomeric elements (15), said second elastomeric elements (15) being arranged between and in contact with the plate (1, 6) and the mass (24) so as to be elastically deformable in response to the mass (24) moving in relation to the contact plate during a damping operation of the damper assembly.
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.
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 4, 5, 7-15, 17, 18 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kuno (JP H06191413 A) in view of Kreuzer (US 7,052,035 B2) and Rick et al. (US 5,947,509). .
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 12-14 and 21-28, Kuno discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including various selections of the shore hardness of the damping members except for the specific ranges as recited in the claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the specific ranges as recited in the claims, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art in order to provide desired frequency of the system.
Re-claim 8, Kuno discloses the mass (24) is connected to the horn plate via one or more connector elements (26) which do not form part of the second elastomeric elements.
Re-claim 9, Kuno discloses the mass (24) is supported by the horn plate (1, 6) so as to be movable in a linear and/or rotational in relation to the horn plate during a damping operation of the damper assembly (19, 15, 16).
Re-claim 10, Kuno discloses the mass (24) is arranged to perform at least a linear movement in relation to the horn plate (1, 6) during a damping operation of the damper assembly, and the second elastic elements (15) are arranged to undergo a shear deformation in response to said linear movement.
Re-claim 11, Kuno discloses the mass (24) is arranged to perform at least a rotational movement in relation to the horn plate (1, 6) during a damping operation of the damper assembly, and the second elastic elements (15) are arranged to undergo an alternating compression/decompression deformation in response to said rotational movement.
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 18, Kuno discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose a plurality of second elastic elements or buffers between and in contact with the contact plate and the mass so as to be elastically deformable in response to the mass moving in relation to the contact plate during a damping operation as recited in the claims. However, each of Kreuzer and Rick disclose a buffer (note 46 of Kreuzer and 96 of Rick) disposed between a plate and an air bag module and in contact with the contact plate and the mass so as to be elastically deformable in response to the mass moving in relation to the contact plate during a damping operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was made to modify the system of Kuno to provide a plurality of buffers as taught by each of Kreuzer and Rick will provide extra support and reduce rattles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm 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, ROBERT SICONOLFI can be reached at 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616