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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 and 9-11 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.
Re: claim 1. The phrase “the spring devices” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from claim 1.
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) 1-4, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 3668939 to Schrader.
Re: claims 1, 6, and 9. Schrader shows in figures 1 and 4 a vibration absorber, comprising: a carrier plate 32 having two sides, the carrier plate including a bore shown surrounding element 35, a mass element 34 on each of the two sides, the mass element 34 on each of the two sides forming a mass pair 34, 34, and a connecting bolt 35, wherein the connecting bolt projects through the bore on each of the two sides of the carrier plate and into the mass element on each of the two sides of the carrier plate as shown to form a respective holding connection to fix or connect the mass elements
[AltContent: textbox (Closed interior space)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
289
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on or to the carrier plate 32, and wherein the carrier plate 32, the mass elements 34 of the mass pair 34, 34 and the spring devices 33 of the mass pair form a closed interior space, as labeled, in which the connecting bolt 35 is arranged.
Re: claim 2. Schrader shows in figure 4 wherein the holding connections are screw connections, latched connections and/or press-fit connections or particularly screw connections as shown by the threaded connection shown near the end of the lead line of 35.
Re: claims 3 and 4. Schrader shows in figure 4 wherein a spring device 33 is arranged between each mass element 34 of the mass pair and the carrier plate 32.
Re: claim 10. Schrader shows in figure 4 wherein the connecting bolt 35 in combination with the connecting nuts of the mass pair has a shoulder or the nut portion for each mass element of the mass pair.
Re: claim 11. Schrader shows in figure 1 wherein a second mass element or one of the similar elements 20 in figure 1 is arranged on each of the two sides of the carrier plate, the second mass elements forming a second mass pair.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of WO-2021058181 (WO’181).
Re: claim 5. Schrader is silent with regard to the spring devices having bores that rest in a radially centered manner against the bolt.
WO’181 teaches in figure 12 the spring devices top and bottom 40a, 40b having bores that rest in a radially centered manner against the fastener 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the spring devices of Schrader to have had bores radially centered against the bolt, in view of the teachings of WO’181, in order to provide a means of eliminating play resulting from the gap and to ensure damping and limiting of any lateral motion of the fastener during operational movement.
Re: claim 7. Schrader is silent with regards to the mass elements being designed without a through bore.
WO’181 teaches in figure 12 mass elements top and bottom 72, 74 being designed without a through bore.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the mass elements of Schrader to have been designed without a through bore, in view of the teachings of WO’181, in order to provide a means of preventing the entry of debris into the assembly and to prevent the fastener from decoupling from the assembly by escaping through the bore.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Schrader is silent with regard to the recited closed interior space. To support his position Applicant argues that the connecting bolt of the present invention differs at least in that the connecting bolt is secured within the mass elements. Examiner notes that the argument with respect to the connecting bolt being secured within the mass elements is more specific than the claim language. Examiner maintains that regardless of whether portions of the connecting bolt extend outside of the mass elements, the carrier plate, the mass elements and the spring devices of Schrader still form a closed interior space as shown in annotated figure 4 of Schrader as illustrated on pg. 3 of the instant Office action. Examiner further notes that the top hole of the top mass 34 is closed off by the head of the connecting bolt and the bottom hole of the bottom mass 34 is closed off by the illustrated nut. Accordingly, the above rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
January 17, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616