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 Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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 1-11, 13-15 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dancasius et al. (US 6,592,141 B1) in view of Steiner (DE 3710173 A1) or Obayashit et al. (US 9,120,453 B2).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 15 and 17-20, Dancasius et al. discloses a method of frequency-tuning a plurality of vibration damper assembly (note the abstract) for dampening vibrations in a steering wheel structure (fig. 1),
wherein each vibration damper assembly comprises a mass (10, 11, 14), and a horn plate (16) having a front side facing towards the mass (10, 11, 14) and a rear side arranged to face towards a vibrating surface of the steering wheel structure (30), said horn plate including mounting openings (note the openings of the plate 16 where a mounting assembly 20, 32, 36, 38 passed through as shown in fig. 1) extending through the horn plate being connectable to said vibrating surface via a plurality of first elastomeric elements (32) so as to be movable in relation to the vibrating surface (30), the plurality of first elastomeric elements (32) being inserted into respective mounting openings; and
wherein said mass (10, 11, 14) is supported by the horn plate (16);
said method comprising said second elastomeric elements (18, 44-46) being arranged between and in contact with the plate (16) and the mass (10, 11, 14) so as to be elastically deformable in response to the mass (10, 11, 14) moving in relation to the contact plate during a damping operation of the damper assembly.
Dancasius et al. discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the design of the coupling elements 18, in particular the material and the shape thereof, is chosen in dependence on the respective circumstances and in particular on the parameters which determine the vibrations which arise, such as energy level, frequency etc (note col. 6, lines 2-7) but fails to disclose frequency-tuning the plurality of vibration damper assemblies to vary vibration frequencies of the vibrating surface by selecting a stiffness of the first elastomeric elements and selecting a stiffness of a plurality of second elastomeric elements as recited in the claims. However, each of Steiner and Obayashit et al. discloses a similar mounting assembly for mounting the steering wheel components with vibration dampers that can be adjusted by changing the hardness or thickness of the elastic members of the mounting assembly (note 28, 31, 34 in fig. 3 of Obayashit et al. and the abstract and figs. 1-5 of Steiner). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the mounting assembly of Dancasius et al. with the teaching of each of Steiner and Obayashit et al. will allow various dampening as desired while providing extra support and reducing unwanted vibration.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, 13-14 and 21-28, the modified device of Dancasius et al. 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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, the modified device of Dancasius et al. discloses the mass (10, 11, 14) is connected to the horn plate via one or more connector elements (20) which do not form part of the second elastomeric elements.
Re-claim 9, the modified device of Dancasius et al. discloses the mass (10, 11, 14) is supported by the horn plate (16) 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.
Re-claim 10, the modified device of Dancasius et al. discloses the mass (10, 11, 14) is arranged to perform at least a linear movement in relation to the horn plate (16) during a damping operation of the damper assembly, and the second elastic elements (18, 44-46) are arranged to undergo a shear deformation in response to said linear movement.
Re-claim 11, the modified device of Dancasius et al. discloses the mass (10, 11, 14) is arranged to perform at least a rotational movement in relation to the horn plate (16) during a damping operation of the damper assembly, and the second elastic elements (18, 44-46) are arranged to undergo an alternating compression/decompression deformation in response to said rotational movement.
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
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
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights