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 06/19/2025 has entered. Claims 1, 7, 12 and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz et al. (2014/0291094 A1).
As per claim 1, Goetz discloses Vibration Absorber comprising:
a core (16, Fig: 1-3) including an inner central portion (16, Fig: 1-3) and a wing (26, Fig: 1-3) extending radially from the inner central portion, the inner central portion and the wing being an integrally formed one-piece component (Fig: 1-3);
an outer tube (18, Fig: 1-3); and
an elastomer body (20, Fig: 1-3) disposed between at least a portion of the core and at least a portion of the outer tube (Fig: 1-3),
wherein a portion of the wing (26) and a curved or bent portion of the outer tube (42, Fig: 1-3) provide an overlap in an axial direction that forms an axial travel limitation via contact between the portion of the wing and the curved or bent portion of the outer tube (The inwardly bent second portion 42 serves as a second stop 44 in case of a movement of the absorber mass 12 in a second axial direction A2, [0030], Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 2, Goetz discloses wherein the elastomer body comprises rubber (elastomer body 20, elastomer is a type of rubber).
As per claim 3, Goetz discloses wherein the elastomer body is configured to provide a void (24, Fig: 1-3) between a portion of the elastomer body (20) and at least a portion of the wing (26, Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 4, Goetz discloses wherein the void (24) permits movement of the core in a radial and/or an axial direction ([0027], Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 5, Goetz discloses wherein the void (24), in combination with the elastomer body (20), provides a progressive stiffness in a void direction with the wing serving as a radial limiter ([0027], Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 6, Goetz discloses wherein a plurality of wings (26, Fig: 2) extend radially from the inner central portion (Fig: 2), and the plurality of wings are formed integrally with the inner central portion (16, Fig: 2) as a one-piece component (Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 7, Goetz discloses Vibration Absorber comprising:
a core (16, Fig: 1-3) including an inner central portion (16, Fig: 1-3) and a wing (26, Fig: 1-3) extending radially from the inner central portion, the inner central portion and the wing being an integrally formed one-piece component (Fig: 1-3);
an outer tube (18, Fig: 1-3); and
an elastomer body (20, Fig: 1-3) disposed between at least a portion of the core and at least a portion of the outer tube (Fig: 1-3),
wherein a portion of the wing (26) and a curved or bent portion of the outer tube (42, Fig: 1-3) provide an overlap in an axial direction that forms an axial travel limitation (The inwardly bent second portion 42 serves as a second stop 44 in case of a movement of the absorber mass 12 in a second axial direction A2, [0030], Fig: 1-3);
a plurality of wings (26, Fig: 2) extend radially from the inner central portion (Fig: 2);
wherein and the elastomer body provides a plurality of voids (24, Fig: 2), and individual voids of the plurality of voids are configured to receive at least a portion of an individual wing of the plurality of wings (Fig: 2).
As per claim 8, Goetz discloses wherein a portion of the plurality of wings (26) and one or more curved or bent portions of the outer tube (42) provide an overlap in an axial direction that forms an axial limitation ([0030], Fig: 1-3)
As per claim 11, Goetz discloses wherein a portion of the elastomer body (20) is disposed around an outer surface of the plurality of wings (26, Fig: 2) to serve as a layer between the outer surface of the plurality of wings and the plurality of voids (Fig: 2).
As per claim 13, Goetz discloses including an offset provided between an axial face of the wing and other portions of the core (The projections 28 have a first end 30 and a second end 32. As is apparent in FIG. 2, the projections 28 are disposed in an offset manner on the outer circumference 34 of the inner sleeve 16, [0028], Fig: 2).
As per claim 14, Goetz discloses wherein the outer tube (18) includes a rubber layer (Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 15, Goetz discloses wherein an inwardly bent portion of the outer tube (42, Fig: 1, 3) includes a rubber layer (Fig: 1, 3) provided in an axial load path of the wing (Fig: 1-3).
As per claim 18, Goetz discloses wherein the inner central portion (16) is annular (Fig: 2).
As per claim 20, Goetz discloses Vibration Absorber comprising:
an inner central portion (16, Fig: 1-3);
a wing (26, Fig: 1-3) that extends radially from the inner central portion (Fig: 1-3);
wherein the inner central portion (16) and the wing (26) are integrally formed as a one-piece component (Fig: 1-3); and
the wing (26) is configured to be disposed in a void (24, fig: 1-3) in an outer radial elastomer (20, fig: 1-3); and
the void (24) is configured to receive at least a portion of the wing (Fig: 1-3).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz et al. (2014/0291094 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Suzuki T (DE – 102019006248 B3).
As per claim 9, Goetz discloses all the structural element of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of wings comprise four wings.
Suzuki discloses Engine Mount For Coupling Of Motor Vehicle To Engine comprising:
wherein the plurality of wings comprise four wings (4 of 18, Fig: 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Vibration Absorber of the Goetz to make the plurality of wings comprise four wings as taught by Suzuki in order to provide more stronger and perfect balance of the absorber.
As per claim 10, Suzuki further discloses wherein the plurality of wings (18) includes one or more sets of opposing identically-shaped wings (18, Fig: 2).
As per claim 12, Suzuki further discloses wherein the core includes four symmetrical wings (18, Fig: 2), and the elastomer body include four voids (Fig: 4), each of the four voids corresponding to one of the four wings, and the elastomer body has an x-shaped configuration (Fig: 4).
As per claim 16, Suzuki further discloses wherein the core is comprised of metal (The core element can be formed from a rigid material such as metal, in particular steel or aluminum, [0009], Fig: 1).
As per claim 17, Suzuki further discloses wherein the core is comprised of a high pressure die cast or extruded aluminum ([0009], Fig: 1-2).
Additionally, claim 17 is considered to be a product-by-process claim, and the examiner notes that it has been held that ever though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) {see MPEP 2113}.
As per claim 19, Suzuki further discloses wherein the inner central portion is square- shaped or elliptical-shaped (Another embodiment showed in Fig: 9-10, inner central portion is square).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 06/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goetz et al. (2014/0291094 A1) [Claims 1-8, 1, 13-15, 18, 20] and further in view of Suzuki T (DE – 102019006248 B3) [Claims 9-10, 12, 16-17, 19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616