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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wernersson et al., US20140305266 (hereinafter, Wernersson).
Regarding claim 1, Wernersson discloses a resilient fastening arrangement (3, see Figs. 1-2) for construction of a vibration damping assembly having at least a first structure 1 and a second structure 2, the resilient fastening arrangement comprising:
a first part 3a for fixation to the first structure of the assembly;
a second part 3b for engagement with the second structure of the assembly; and
a third part 4 arranged to resiliently connect the first part to the second part along an arrangement axis;
wherein the third part includes a resilient member (see compression spring 4 in Figs. 1-2) arranged to at least partially extend within a hole of the first structure and/or of the second structure of the assembly (see Fig. 1).
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) 2-14, 16-23, 25-27 and 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wernersson in view of Sun et al., WO2015115702 (hereinafter, Sun).
Regarding claim 2, Wernersson teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 1, wherein Wernersson further teaches the resilient member 4 comprises a core region (central portion of the spring located between two ends 41, 42) located, along the arrangement axis, between two end regions of the resilient member;
wherein each of the end regions 41, 42 is attached to the first 3a and the second parts 3b respectively (see Figs. 1-2).
Wernersson fails to teach wherein the core region is configured to have a core region spring rate along the arrangement axis, and the end regions are configured to have a spring rate along the arrangement axis being different from the core region spring rate.
However, Sun teaches a dynamic damper (see Figs. 1-3) for a washing machine comprising a coil spring (see Fig. 6) having a core region (b,c) and core region spring rate along the arrangement axis, and the end regions (a) are configured to have a spring rate along the arrangement axis being different from the core region spring rate (see pitch of the core region and the pitch of the end regions in Fig. 6 resulting different spring rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have spring in arrangement of Wernersson to be replaced by coil spring of Sun for a remarkable effect in suppressing vibration by generating different damping forces (Abstract)
Regarding claim 3, [A resilient fastening arrangement for construction of a vibration damping assembly having at least a first structure and a second structure, the resilient fastening arrangement comprising:
a first part for fixation to the first structure of the assembly;
a second part for engagement with the second structure of the assembly; and
a third part including a resilient member arranged to resiliently connect the first part to the second part along an arrangement axis;
wherein the resilient member includes a core region located, along the arrangement axis, between two end regions of the resilient member;]
For the limitations above in brackets, limitations are as same as limitations in claim 1, therefore please refer to the rejection set forth above in claim 1.
[wherein each of the end regions is attached to the first and the second parts respectively; and
wherein the core region is configured to have a core region spring rate along the arrangement axis, and the end regions are configured to have a spring rate along the arrangement axis being different from the core region spring rate.]
For the limitations above in brackets, limitations are as same as limitations in claim 2, therefore Wernersson in view of Sun still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein Wernersson further teaches the resilient member 4 is arranged to at least partially extend within a hole of the first structure and/or of the second structure 2 of the assembly (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according claim 3, wherein Sun further teaches the core region spring rate of the core region (b,c) of the resilient member is lower (non-linear) than the spring rate of the end regions (a) of the resilient member (higher spring rate at the end regions resulted by densed/lower pitch as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 4, [wherein the hole is a through-hole of the second structure and the resilient fastening arrangement is adapted such that the resilient member is to be fully arranged in the through-hole of the second structure of the assembly].
The Examiner interprets the hole of the structures is not positively claimed and are considered obvious since fastening arrangement may be adapted to any number of holes in number of substrates or structures. Therefore, the limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 7, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein Wernersson further teaches the second part 3b comprises a head portion 5 provided with head portion connection means adapted to engage the second structure 2 by fixation to the second structure.
Regarding claim 8, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein Wernersson further teaches the resilient member 4 is arranged such that, when the resilient fastening arrangement (see Fig. 1) is used in the construction of the vibration damping assembly, fixation of the resilient fastening arrangement to the first structure and the second structure, causes biasing of the resilient member (see Fig. 1 and para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 4, wherein the first part 3a comprises piercing means (see threads and tip of the first part 3a in Fig. 4) adapted to form a through-hole (para. [0058]) for the resilient member in the second structure and/or the hole for the resilient member in the first structure of the assembly, when the resilient fastening arrangement is fastened to the vibration damping assembly (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the first part 3a comprises a first connecting portion 21, and the second part 3b comprises a second connecting portion 22; and
wherein a first end 41 of the third part 4 is adapted to be attached to first connecting portion 21 and a second end 42 of the third part 4 is adapted to be attached to the second connecting portion 4.
Regarding claim 11, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the resilient member is a spring (see spring 4 in Figs. 1-2 of Wernersson).
Regarding claim 12, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement to claim 11, wherein Wernersson further teaches the third part 4 is attached to the first and the second connecting portions by means of threading (see threading 21 & 22 in first and second connecting portion) on the first and the second connecting portions respectively.
Regarding claim 13, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 12, wherein a threading pitch of the threading of the first 21 and the second connecting portions 22 is offset (see Figs. 1-2 showing first and second connecting portion is offset from each other), along the arrangement axis, from a spring pitch of the spring such that the spring is biasedly attached to the first and the second connecting portions (refer to Fig. 1 showing the spring pitch of the spring biasedly attached to the first and second part).
Regarding claim 14, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 13, wherein Sun further teaches the spring pitch of the spring is higher in a core region of the spring arranged between the first and the second parts than in end regions attaching to the first and the second parts (see Fig. 6 where the spring portion “b” have higher pitch in a core region than end regions “a”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have spring in arrangement of Wernersson to be replaced by coil spring of Sun with recited pitch above for a remarkable effect in suppressing vibration by generating different damping forces (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein Wernersson further teaches the first part 3a is provided with threads (see threaded portion of 3a in Figs. 1-2) for fixation in the first structure 1.
Regarding claim 17, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein Wernersson in second embodiment shown in Fig. 5 shows a head portion (see Fig. 5) of the second part 53b is provided with head part connection means in the form of threads 53b’ for fixation in the second structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the first embodiment of Wernersson to have threaded head part as shown in the second embodiment in Fig. 5 so the second part is adapted to interact with the second construction directly or by pre-fabricated hole formed in the second construction (para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the first part 3a comprises a radially protruding flange portion 27.
Regarding claim 19, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, wherein a maximum radius of the first part is equal to, or larger than, a maximum radius of the third part (see Figs. 1-2 where the maximum radius of first part 3a is larger than maximum radius of third part 4), and a maximum radius of the second part 3b is larger than the maximum radius of the first part 3a.
Regarding claim 20, A vibration damping assembly comprising at least a first structure and a second structure, wherein the second structure is resiliently attached to the first structure by a plurality of resilient fastening arrangements comprising:
a first part for fixation to the first structure of the assembly;
a second part for engagement with the second structure of the assembly; and
a third part including a resilient member arranged to resiliently connect the first part to the second part along an arrangement axis;
wherein the resilient member includes a core region located, along the arrangement axis, between two end regions of the resilient member;
wherein each of the end regions is attached to the first and the second parts respectively; and
wherein the core region is configured to have a core region spring rate along the arrangement axis, and the end regions are configured to have a spring rate along the arrangement axis being different from the core region spring rate.
The Examiner interprets the limitations of claim 20 is same as limitations in claim 1, except for the vibration damping assembly. However, the arrangement presented by Wernersson is a vibration damping assembly (see para. [0011] and [0051]). Therefore, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the vibration damping assembly according to claim 20, wherein Wernersson further teaches the second structure (2, see Fig. 1) is located between a head portion 5 of the second part 3b of the resilient fastening arrangement and the first structure 1.
Regarding claim 22, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the vibration damping assembly according to claim 20, wherein the resilient member 4 is accommodated by a through-hole of the second structure (see Fig. 1 showing the resilient member 4 is accommodated in a through hole of the second structure 2) and/or a hole of the first structure.
Regarding claim 23, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the vibration damping assembly of claim 20, as best understood, Wernersson further teaches wherein the second structure 2 is biased away from the first structure 1 by means of the resilient member 4 of the resilient fastening arrangement (see Fig. 1).
Regarding clam 25, A vibration damping assembly comprising at least a first structure and a second structure, wherein the second structure is resiliently attached to the first structure by a plurality of resilient fastening arrangements comprising:
a first part fixed to the first structure of the assembly;
a second part fixed to the second structure of the assembly; and
a third part arranged to resiliently connect the first part to the second part along an arrangement axis;
wherein the third part includes a resilient member arranged to at least partially extend within a hole of the first structure and/or of the second structure of the assembly.
The Examiner interprets the limitations in claim 25 is similar to claim 20, therefore Wernersson in view of Sun still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 20.
Regarding claim 26, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the vibration damping assembly of claim 25, wherein the hole is a through-hole (see Fig. 1) of the second structure 2 and the resilient member 4 is accommodated by the through-hole of the second structure 2.
Regarding claim 27, The vibration damping assembly of claim 25, as best understood, Wernersson further teaches wherein the second structure 2 is biased away from the first structure 1 by the resilient member 4 of the resilient fastening arrangement (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, A method for constructing a vibration damping assembly, the method comprising:
providing a first structure (1, Wernersson Figs. 1-2);
providing a second structure 2;
arranging a resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 1 (see rejection set forth in claim 1) such that:
the first part 3a of the resilient fastening arrangement is fixed to the first structure 1 of the arrangement,
the second part 3b of the resilient fastening arrangement is engaging the second structure 2 of the assembly, and
during the arranging, subjecting the resilient fastening arrangement to an axial force such that the resilient member is biased during the arranging (see Figs. 1-4 where an axial force is considered a tool 31), and
removing the axial force such that the second structure becomes resiliently fastened to the first structure by the resilient fastening arrangement (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 29¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Given the structure of a fastening arrangement, the structural elements of the combination of Wernersson and Sun (as rejected in claims 1-14 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 30, Wernersson in view of Sun make obvious of the method according to claim 29, wherein the step of arranging the resilient fastening arrangement further comprises arranging the third part 4 of the resilient fastening arrangement such that it is at least partly arranged in a hole (see Fig. 1) of the first structure 1 and/or in a through-hole of the second structure of the assembly.
Regarding claim 31, Wernersson in view of Sun makes obvious of the method according to claim 30, further comprising forming the through-hole (see Fig. 1) in the second structure 2 before the step of arranging the resilient fastening arrangement (para. [0062], page 4, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 32, Wernersson in view of Sun makes obvious of the method according to claim 30, wherein the through-hole is formed by piercing means of the first part during the arranging of the resilient fastening arrangement to the second structure and the first structure (para. [0058] and para. [0062], page 4, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 33, Wernersson in view of Sun makes obvious of the method according to claim 29, wherein the step of arranging the resilient fastening arrangement is performed by rotating the resilient fastening arrangement about the arrangement axis (see para. [0060] of Wernersson).
Regarding claim 34, Wernersson in view of Sun makes obvious of the method according to claim 33, wherein the rotation is performed until an end section of the second part of the resilient fastening arrangement is substantially flush (see Fig. 1) with a face of the second structure facing away from the first structure (see Figs. 1 and 3-6).
Regarding claim 35, Wernersson in view of Sun makes obvious of the method according to claim 29, wherein the step of subjecting comprises fixating a third structure, such that the second structure is sandwiched between the first structure and the third structure.
The Examiner interprets Wernersson in view of Sun teaches all the structural limitations and makes obvious of the method steps, except for the optional third structure. Therefore, the Examiner considers it is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to use sealant, reinforcing dry wall or wooden piece as a third structure so that the second structure is sandwiched between the first structure and the third structure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wernersson in view of Sun, in further view of Hodsdon et al., US20190107139 (hereinafter, Hodsdon).
Regarding claim 15, Wernersson in view of Sun teaches the resilient fastening arrangement according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the third part comprises a sleeve arranged to at least partly, along the arrangement axis, surround the resilient member.
Hodsdon teaches a threaded fastening (see Fig. 3A) wherein the third part 18 comprises a sleeve 16 arranged to at least partly, along the arrangement axis, surround the resilient member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the fastening arrangement of Wernersson to have sleeve as taught by Hodsdon so the sleeve is adapted to interface with a mating tool to impart torque on the fastener assembly effectively preventing damage to the spring (see claim 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wernersson’s second partial portion 3b of the fastening arrangement 3 is not fixated into the second structure 2.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitation required by the claim 1 is “a second part for engagement with the second structure of the assembly” which is not necessarily fixated, but engaged. Wernersson’s second partial portion 3b is clearly engaged with the second structure 2, see para. [0052] stating that the second partial portion 3b is interactable with the second construction 2 and engagement shown in Fig. 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant argues Wernersson’s second partial portion 3b does not engage by means of attachment or abutment by a third structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Third structure isn’t claimed in claim 1, therefore the Examiner’s does not see contrast. However, as best understood, Wernersson’s second partial portion 3b is connected to the second end 42 of third part resulting distance “D” as shown in Fig. 1 of Wernersson.
Applicant argues Wernersson’s remaining embodiment fails to teach “a resilient member arranged to at least partially extend within a hole of the first structure and/or of the second structure”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wernersson has construction structures disclosed in Fig. 1 so the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 has been used to map the limitation in office action. Figs. 1 of Wernersson has clearly shown and met the limitation of claim 1. Please refer to the previous rejection. The examiner’s finds the applicant’s argument regarding drawings in Figs. 5-6 to be weightless given the fact that fig. 1 discloses and meet structural limitations as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, please see rationale above concerning the term engagement among other reasoning similar to claim 1.
Applicant argues that the teaching reference Sun relates to a different technical field and serves a dramatically different purpose.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although, the secondary reference Sun may relate to a different technical field, but not necessarily a dramatically different purpose. As primary reference Wernersson’s arrangement may be used for damping the conduction of the sound waves by vibration movement (see para. [0011]) and the secondary reference “Sun” uses its coil spring for similar purpose of vibration damping operations.
Applicant states that argument regarding claims 20, 25 and 29 are somewhat similar to or depends on claim 1, therefore please refer to the argument and/or rationale addressed above.
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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675