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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/26 has been entered.
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 3-5 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 3. The phrase “a spring device” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the spring device in claim 3 is intended to be the same or different from the spring devices recited in claim 1.
Re: claim 4. The phrase “the spring device” is indefinite. More than one spring device was previously recited; therefore, it is unclear which of the plurality of spring devices Applicant intends to refer to or whether intended to refer back to the plurality of spring devices.
The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3668939 to Schrader in view of DE-102019104386 (DE’386).
Re: claims 1, 6, 7, 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, but is silent with regard to the connecting bolt being disposed entirely within the closed interior space and wherein the respective holding connection being formed in the corresponding one of the mass elements.
DE’386 teaches in figure 3 the use of a holding connection 34 of a connecting element 26 of a vibration absorber being entirely enclosed within a mass element 12 via the presence of a blind hole surrounding portion 34 of the connecting element.
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 included a blind hole to entirely enclose the holding connection of the connecting element within the mass element, in view of the teachings of DE’386, in order to provide a means of resulting in an arrangement in which the connecting bolt is disposed entirely within the closed interior space and wherein the respective holding connection is formed in the corresponding one of the mass elements to shield the connecting element from dirt or impact damage and to reduce rattling and the possibility of snagging by fully enclosing the connecting element.
Re: claim 2. Schrader, as modified, teaches in figure 4 of Schrader 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, as modified, teaches in figure 4 of Schrader 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, as modified, teaches in figure 4 of Schrader 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, as modified, teaches in figure 1 of Schrader 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of DE’386 as applied above, and further in view of WO-2021058181 (WO’181).
Re: claim 5. Schrader, as modified, 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, as modified, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references used in the previous Office action.
Conclusion
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
May 26, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights