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
The amendment filed 11/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/653541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a machine with a structure to be damped with a spring system and a mass system to damp in two different eigenmode directions and dampeners with different rigidity (claims 10 -11, 18/653541).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms/phrases “tool spindle 8” and “machine tool 8” [0043] both have the same reference number – 8. Presumably “machine tool 8” is in error and should be - - machine tool 2 - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for having “a structure to be damped”, does not reasonably provide enablement for the structure to be damped being operatively linked to the tool spindle and workpiece spindle. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Presumably, the “structure to be damped” is “axial housing 16 is in the present case a structure 16 to be damped of the machine tool 8” [0043]. How is the “structure” operatively linked to the tool spindle and workpiece spindle? As claimed it is not operatively linked to the tool spindle or the workpiece spindle and is not clear if it is supposed to be on either the tool spindle or the workpiece spindle or only one of the tool spindle or the workpiece spindle and if only one which one (tool spindle or the workpiece spindle) is the “structure” connected to?.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
The phrase “the machine axis is configured to execute a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece” in claim 1 is a non-structural term/phrase in which the “machine axis” is performing the “machine kinematic”. The term “machine axis” is not a structural term and not cable of performing a machine kinematic. Presumably the function “configured to execute a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece using the tool” is achieved as recited in the instant specification – “direct drives, ball screw drives, or the like in order to execute the relative movements between tool 10 and workpiece 6” [0041]. Examiner suggest reciting the structure that performs the function rather than a non-structural feature.
The term “structure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “structure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since “a structure” is not limited to any particular member/mechanism it is directed to any part/portion of the machine tool in which it is not clear what part/portion the structure is directed to and if the structure is connected to the other claimed members or is some separate external device/structure (i.e. material handling device such as US 4040303 A) not directly connected. Presumably, the “structure to be damped” is “axial housing 16 is in the present case a structure 16 to be damped of the machine tool 8” [0043].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STURM et al. (WO 2017211949 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over STURM et al. (WO 2017211949 A1) in view of Greppmair (US 4673043 A) and further in view of Oiwa (US 20070107547 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 9, 13, and 16, STURM et al. discloses a machine tool (CNC machining device 1) and method, having the following method steps: providing the machine tool (CNC machining device 1) comprising: a workpiece spindle (W and/or 3/5) for accommodating a workpiece (preferably plate-shaped workpieces pages 11-17, claim 1, figs. 1-2 also see confusion for whether there are two structures with one being a workpiece spindle above), a tool spindle (4) for accommodating a tool (milling tool, a drill, a sanding head, fig. 2), at least one movable machine axis (5 moves vertically), wherein the machine axis (5) is configured to execute a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece using the tool (4, pages 14-17);
a structure (11) to be damped, is a movable part of the machine axis and is movable part of the machine axis (moveably guide the machining aggregate in a spatial direction [0021]), and a device for vibration damping (7/9), which is connected to the structure (11) to be damped for vibration damping of the structure (11) to be damped, wherein the device for vibration damping (7/9) has a spring system (7/9) and a mass system (8), wherein the spring system (7/9) has at least one spring element (7/9, figs. 3-5), and wherein the mass system (8) has at least one mass element (8),
wherein the structure (11) to be damped has a first eigenmode in a first direction (pages 11-12), the structure to be damped has a second eigenmode in a second direction different from the first direction, the spring system has a first rigidity (101 and/or 7) in a first direction of action (fig. 1), the spring system has a second rigidity (103/9) in a second direction of action (pages 13-14, fig. 1), and the first rigidity is greater or less than the second rigidity; the first direction of action (fig. 3) is oriented in parallel to the first direction (fig. 3) and/or the second direction of action (fig. 3) is oriented in parallel to the second direction (elasticity (101) is higher than 103/9, also the mass and/or the damping characteristic of the damping element and/or the rigidity of the elastic support member is/are adjustable and discloses adjusting the damping for optimal setting parameters and eigenmodes) the first direction of action is oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action and the second direction of action are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or the first direction and the second direction are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or a longitudinal extension of the spring element is oriented orthogonally to the first direction of action and to the second direction of action and the steps of machining a workpiece (W) wherein the machine axis executes a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece by using the tool and wherein the device for vibration damping effectuates damping of a vibration along the first direction and/or the second direction (dampening in orthogonal directions shown pages 11-17, figs. 1-5).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that STURM et al. fails to disclose a workpiece spindle for accommodating a workpiece, the structure to be damped has a first eigenmode in a first direction, the structure to be damped has a second eigenmode in a second direction different from the first direction, the spring system has a first rigidity in a first direction of action, the spring system has a second rigidity in a second direction of action, and the first rigidity is greater or less than the second rigidity with the first direction of action oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the steps of machining the workpiece accommodated on the workpiece spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle, wherein the machine axis executes a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece using the tool
Greppmair teaches having a similar dual structure (housing 1, cover 2) to be damped, and a device for vibration damping (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 torsional sleeves 11/11’), which is connected to the structure (1/2) to be damped for vibration damping of the structure (1/2) to be damped, wherein the device for vibration damping (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) has a spring system (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) and a mass system (swing arms 7b, 8b and/or hammer piston), wherein the spring system stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) has at least one spring element (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’), and wherein the mass system (swing arms 7b, 8b and/or hammer piston) has at least one mass element (swing arms 7b, 8b and/or hammer piston),
wherein the structure (1/2) to be damped has the spring system with a first rigidity (12/14 rigid) in a first direction of action (figs. 1-7), the spring system has a second rigidity (12/13 and/or torsional sleeves 11/11’) in a second direction of action (opposite direction figs. 1-7), and the first rigidity is greater or less than the second rigidity (12/14 rigid stops and 14/15 more resilient/less rigid than 12/14 and teaches the stops are adjustable) the first direction of action is oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action and the second direction of action are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or the first direction and the second direction are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or a longitudinal extension of the spring element is oriented orthogonally to the first direction of action and to the second direction of action (the stops “delimit movement in the opposite direction”, torsional sleeves 11/11’ are also elastic with rigid outer sleeve, with 11’, fig. 6 oriented orthogonally in different orthogonal directions col. 3, line 8-col. 4, line 44, figs. 1-7).
Oiwa teaches a machine tool (1) having a workpiece spindle (6) for accommodating a workpiece (W/W1/W2) and steps of machining the workpiece accommodated on the workpiece spindle (via tool holder (8, [0025-0027]) by a rotationally driven tool (4) accommodated on the tool spindle (4), wherein the machine axis (A and/or B) executes a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece (W/W1/W2) using the tool (4a and/or 9/10 [0025-0030], claim 1, figs. 1-5).
Given the teachings of STURM et al. to have a dampening spring with eigenmode set as desired and different rigidity/elasticity, it 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 to modify the CNC machining device with having workpiece spindle for accommodating a workpiece, the spring mass system of structure to be damped with a first eigenmode in a first direction, the structure to be damped has a second eigenmode in a second direction different from the first direction, the spring system has a first rigidity in a first direction of action, the spring system has a second rigidity in a second direction of action, and the first rigidity is greater or less than the second rigidity with the first direction of action oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action is oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action and the second direction of action are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or the first direction and the second direction are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or a longitudinal extension of the spring element is oriented orthogonally to the first direction of action and to the second direction of action and the steps of machining the workpiece accommodated on the workpiece spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle, wherein the machine axis executes a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece using the tool to have precise adjustment of dampening of the tool, dampening in all directions, using more than one workpiece, adjustment of the workpiece and/or spindles, ergonomics, more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece with proper rebound/dampening), safety, and/or for feedback purposes as taught and evidenced by Greppmair and Oiwa. Also, it has been held adjustability (adjusting the spring mass system), where needed, is not a patentable advance, and if an art-recognized need for adjustment the prior art would have been obvious. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 3, STURM et al. discloses STURM et al. discloses the at least one spring element (damping elements 7) is bar-shaped and has a double-symmetrical cross section (bar shaped figs. 2-6), and/or at least one spring element (7/9) is bar-shaped and has axial geometrical moments of inertia differing in their absolute value with respect to the first direction of action and the second direction of action (damping elements 7 and 9 arranged in different directions).
Regarding claims 4-5, STURM et al. teaches the damping characteristic of the damping element and/or the rigidity of the elastic support member is/are adjustable and discloses adjusting the damping for optimal setting parameters and eigenmodes, pages 11-17, figs. 1-5) but fails to explicitly disclose a positioning device is provided, wherein the positioning device is configured to set a relative position and/or orientation of the spring element relative to the structure to be damped and is lockable to fix the relative position and/or orientation
Greppmair also teaches having a positioning device is provided, wherein the positioning device is configured to set a relative position and/or orientation of the spring element relative to the structure to be damped is lockable to fix the relative position and/or orientation (inherently has to lock to adjust the springs col. 4, lines 17-23).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 10, STURM et al. teaches the device for vibration damping has a damper system (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) having at least one damping element, the spring system has two or more spring elements (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) and wherein the damper system (stops 12, 13 and 14, 15 and torsional sleeves 11/11’) has an active and/or a passive damping element (7-passive abstract, [0009-0017, 0024, 0028, 0047], claims 1 and 12) and the mass system (8) has at least one mass element (8), which has a main body (8) for accommodating and/or fastening further mass elements (8-weight plates [0044]), wherein at least one of the further mass elements (36) is arranged in a recess (40) of the main body (20) and/or at least one of the further mass elements (8) is detachably connected to the main body (3), in particular is screwed or pinned on ([0044-0049], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claims 14, STURM et al. teaches the structure to be damped is a tool spindle axis having the tool spindle (4), wherein the tool spindle (4) is movable and/or pivotable using the tool spindle axis (moveably guide the machining aggregate in a spatial direction [0021]). Greppmair also teaches the structure (housing 1, cover 2) to be damped is a tool spindle axis having the tool spindle (hammer tool), wherein the tool spindle (hammer tool attached to drive/motor) is movable and/or pivotable using the tool spindle axis (housing moves relative to cover and handles). Oiwa also teaches the machine tool (1) having a tool post 5 that a pivots (pivot point B) with a spindle (6) and a tool holder (8, [0025-0027]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over STURM et al. (WO 2017211949 A1) in view of Greppmair (US 4673043 A) in view of Oiwa (US 20070107547 A1) and further in view of Borgers et al. (US 20170101747 A1).
Regarding claim 3, STURM et al. discloses the at least one spring element (damping elements 7) is bar-shaped and has a double-symmetrical cross section (bar shaped figs. 2-6), and/or at least one spring element (7/9) is bar-shaped and has axial geometrical moments of inertia differing in their absolute value with respect to the first direction of action and the second direction of action (damping elements 7 and 9 arranged in different directions).
Alternatively, if it can be argued that STURM et al. fails to disclose the spring elements are bar-shaped and has a double-symmetrical cross section –
Borgers et al. teaches having spring elements are bar-shaped and has a double-symmetrical cross section (104/106 with four rubber rods 112) inside a housing 108 with rubber bars 112 inside housing 110 that inserts into housing 10 ([0021-0030], figs. 1-5).
Given the teachings of STURM et al. to have a dampening spring with eigenmode set as desired and different rigidity/elasticity, it 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 to modify the spring elements are bar-shaped and has a double-symmetrical cross section to allowing relative movement between housings, have precise adjustment of dampening of the tool, ergonomics, more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece with proper rebound/dampening), safety, and/or for feedback purposes as taught and evidenced by Borgers et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11-12, and 15 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 and if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed for Application No. 18/653541.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a machine tool having spring-mass dampening device comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, the mass element member having at least one recess having a mass element accommodated therein is part of the damper system, wherein an oil for squeeze film damping is provided in the recess. Though STURM et al. teaches a spring-mass dampening device and a hydraulic damping, it would not be obvious to modify spring mass system to have the mass element member having at least one recess having a mass element accommodated therein is part of the damper system, wherein an oil for squeeze film damping is provided in the recess and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a mass element member having at least one recess having a mass element accommodated therein is part of the damper system, wherein an oil for squeeze film damping is provided in the recess without having to modify the housing, spring mass system and tool spindle to function with a mass element member having at least one recess having a mass element accommodated therein is part of the damper system (24), wherein an oil for squeeze film damping is provided in the recess. Having the efficiency and adjustability of the mass element member having at least one recess having a mass element accommodated therein is part of the damper system (24), wherein an oil for squeeze film damping is provided in the recess provides an effective dampening device for a machine tool.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and Drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and Drawing objections rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 and a Specification Objection. As discussed above, the “structure” amendment does clarify clearer support and how many structures there are but confusion remains as to what the “structure” is directed to and what it is connected to and how it is connected. Also, Since STURM et al. to have a dampening spring with eigenmode set as desired and different rigidity/elasticity, it 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 to modify the CNC machining device with having workpiece spindle for accommodating a workpiece, the spring mass system of structure to be damped with a first eigenmode in a first direction, the structure to be damped has a second eigenmode in a second direction different from the first direction, the spring system has a first rigidity in a first direction of action, the spring system has a second rigidity in a second direction of action, and the first rigidity is greater or less than the second rigidity with the first direction of action oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action is oriented in parallel to the first direction and/or the second direction of action is oriented in parallel to the second direction and the first direction of action and the second direction of action are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or the first direction and the second direction are arranged orthogonally to one another and/or a longitudinal extension of the spring element is oriented orthogonally to the first direction of action and to the second direction of action and the steps of machining the workpiece accommodated on the workpiece spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle by a rotationally driven tool accommodated on the tool spindle, wherein the machine axis executes a machine kinematic to machine the workpiece using the tool to have precise adjustment of dampening of the tool, dampening in all directions, using more than one workpiece, adjustment of the workpiece and/or spindles, ergonomics, more precise action on a workpiece (avoid overshoot/damage to the workpiece with proper rebound/dampening), safety, and/or for feedback purposes as taught and evidenced by Greppmair and Oiwa. Also, it has been held adjustability (adjusting the spring mass system), where needed, is not a patentable advance, and if an art-recognized need for adjustment the prior art would have been obvious. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Examiner suggest correcting the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and Drawing objections and also clarifying/reciting in the claims how the structural members are connected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP S6268275 A - damper 27 with adjustable leaf spring 22 and mass (26) and plunger 30 with oil container 28 is adjusted for correct dampening and see references cited, form 892.
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 ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (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, Truong Truong can be reached at (571) 272-4472. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731