DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments received 21 April 2026.
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 Objections
Claims 1-7 and 10-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 7, it is suggested to change “at least two” to three and to delete “wherein the at least two arms include three arms that extend outwardly and connect the central mass to the outer portion,” to be more concise.
Regarding claim 2, line 2, claim 4, line 2, and claim 5, line 2, it is suggested to change “at least two” to three.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is now drawn to the embodiment of Figures 4-5. Claim 12 is drawn to the embodiments of Figures 6, 27, and 28. Claim 13 is drawn to the embodiments of Figures 4, 7, 16, 20, 27 and 28. Claims 14 and 15 are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 6. Claims 19-20 are drawn to the embodiment of Figure 25. Claim 21 is drawn to the embodiment of Figures 11-12. These other embodiments are not disclosed as being combinable with the embodiment of Figures 4-5. Claims 12-15 and 19-21 constitute new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albin (US 6,709,352 B1).
Regarding claim 24, Albin discloses a vibration damper [24] to be inserted within an interior wall [48] of a sports shaft [22], the vibration damper [24] comprising: an outer portion [32] configured to directly contact (via outer ring attachment circumference [40]) and engage the interior wall [48] of the sports shaft [22]; a central mass [26] that extends coaxially with the outer portion [32] and that is disposed within the outer portion [32]; at least two arms [30] that extend outwardly and connect the central mass [26] to the outer portion [32] (via inner damping mass holding ring [34]); and apertures (see apertures between mass supports [30]) disposed between the central mass [26] and the outer portion [32], wherein the vibration damper [24] has a uniform cross-section (see Figure 4) along its entire length (col. 5 lines 37-64 and Figures 2-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kumamoto (US 2003/0148820 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Albin is silent as to the masses of the vibration damper parts. Kumamoto, however, teaches a similar vibration damper [10] of a sports shaft [1] comprising a central mass [13] and at least two arms [12], wherein a fraction of (a) a mass of the central mass [13] and the at least two arms [12] divided by (b) a total mass of the vibration damper [10] is greater than one half (paragraphs 0016, 0022-0023, 0061-0063, and Figures 1A-3B; wherein the weight of the central part [13] alone can be up to 60% of the whole weight of the vibration absorption member [10] such that the mass of the central part [13] and the connection parts [12] would be greater than 60% (i.e., greater than one half) of the total weight of the vibration absorption member [10]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a fraction of a mass of Albin’s central mass and arms divided by a total mass of the vibration damper to be greater than one half because Kumamoto teaches that this configuration creates a high-strength vibration absorption member that sufficiently absorbs vibrations and impacts and enhances the vibration-damping effect (paragraphs 0016 and 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 16-18, 25, and 27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the subject matter of claim 9, previously indicated as allowable has been incorporated into independent claim 1. Regarding claim 25, the combination including the features being arranged directly adjacent to each other around the entirety of the outer portion in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
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 AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571)272-4463. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights