Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/268,870

STRUCTURAL DAMPER FOR PROTECTING STRUCTURES AGAINST VIBRATIONS AND STRUCTURE COMPRISING SUCH A STRUCTURAL DAMPER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
BURCH, MELODY M
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Maurer Engineering GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
658 granted / 1029 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 5, 16, and 21 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: claims 5, 16, and 21. The phrase “in particular” fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim. 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) 1-9, 12-14, 17-20, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-5423182 (JP’182). Re: claims 1, 4-9, 22, and 23. JP’182 shows in figure 1 a structural damper for protecting structures against vibrations, comprising: a first pendulum with a first pendulum mass 12; a second pendulum with a second pendulum mass 22; a coupling device 30; and a damping device 40c, wherein the coupling device is arranged between the first pendulum mass 12 and the second pendulum mass 22 and is configured to couple the first pendulum mass to the second pendulum mass in an effective direction of the structural damper and to allow relative movement between the first pendulum mass and the second pendulum mass in a direction of movement angled to the effective direction, characterized in that wherein the damping device 40c is arranged between the first pendulum mass and the second pendulum mass and is designed to damp the relative movement in the direction of movement between the first pendulum mass and the second pendulum mass, wherein the coupling device comprises a guide element or the portion of 30 surrounding element 12a, characterized in that the coupling device 30 has an end stop 31 which is formed in such a way that the relative movement in the direction of movement between the first pendulum mass and the second pendulum mass is limited, wherein the end stop is integrated into the guide element. Re: claim 2. JP’182 shows in figure 1 characterized that the effective direction of the structural damper has a horizontal component or is in the horizontal direction as shown in figure 3. Re: claim 3. JP’182 shows in figure 1 characterized in that the direction of movement has a vertical component or is in the vertical or up and down direction as shown in figure 1. Re: claims 12-14. JP’182 shows in figure 1 in that the damping device 40c is arranged in the direction of movement i.e. up and down direction between the first pendulum mass 12 and the second pendulum mass 22. Re: claim 17-20. JP’182 shows in figure 1 in that the structural damper comprises a stiffness device or right element 40c arranged between the first pendulum mass 12 and the second pendulum mass 22 to stiffen the relative movement in the direction of movement between the first pendulum mass and the second pendulum mass. Re: claim 24. JP’182 shows in figure 1 in that the second pendulum 22 has a pendulum rod 24. Re: claim 25. JP’182 shows in figure 1 in that the first pendulum mass 12 and the second pendulum mass 22 are coupled to each other in an articulated manner as shown in figures 1 and 3. Re: claim 26. JP’182 discloses in the paragraph beginning “For example, according to equation 8” the use of the structural damper wherein the structure is a wind turbine or a high-rise building, or particularly a high-rise building. 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) 11, 15, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’182 in view of US Patent 5255764 to Kurabayashi et al. Re: claim 11. JP’182 shows in figure 1 the coupling device 30 comprising a stop device 31 that is movable with respect to the first pendulum mass 12 via element 40c but is silent with regard to the stop device being active and designed to change. Kurabayashi et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a coupling device being active and designed to change via the labeled control unit. [AltContent: textbox (Coupling device)][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 377 641 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 stop device of JP’182 to have been active and designed to change, in view of the teachings of Kurabayashi et al., in order to provide a means of preventing excessive movement during extreme events such as earthquakes. Re: claims 15 and 16. JP’182 is silent with regard to the damping device being linear-viscous, non-linear viscous, or active damping properties. Kurabayashi et al. teach in the abstract the use of a damping device having active damping properties i.e. the hydraulic cylinder switching to active type operation. 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 damping device of JP’182 to have active damping properties, in view of the teachings of Kurabayashi et al., in order to provide a means of adjusting the damping characteristics of the damper depending on the current conditions of the particular event for more precise vibration control. Re: claim 21. JP’182 is silent with regard to the stiffness device comprising a passive spring, a semi-active hydraulic damper and/or an active element. Kurabayashi et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a stiffness device comprising a passive spring S. 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 stiffening device of JP’182 to have included a passive spring, in view of the teachings of Kurabayashi et al., in order to provide a simple way of controlling small movements, limiting displacement, and improving tuning and efficiency of the vibration control system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foreign references JP-2018004055, CN-106978933, CN-204129241, and JP-2012141005 teach the use of similar structural damper systems. 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 March 16, 2026 /MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600331
CENTRAL ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROL MODULE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMPONENT AND HAVING AN INTEGRATED CENTRAL BRAKE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601382
BRAKE BODY FOR A TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A BRAKE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601386
VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595845
DRIVELINE INCLUDING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER AND METHOD OF OPERATING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595835
END-STOP CONTROL VALVES FOR PROVIDING PROGESSIVE DAMPING FORCES IN VIBRATION DAMPERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month