DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 10/23/25 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 13-22 are currently pending, with claims 11-12 being cancelled and claims 21-22 being newly added. Despite the substantive amendments are Applicant’s arguments, the rejections are maintained as detailed below. A new section 112 indefiniteness rejection is also included. 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 21-22 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.
Claim 21 is rejected because it defines “a fourth inner diameter of a second step” but then later refers to “the second diameter of the second step.” See claim 21, lines 6, 9. Does this “second step” have multiple inner diameters or is this an error? Also, the claim defines “a second inner diameter of second inner wall” but then refers to “the second inner diameter of the second step.” See claim 21, lines 3, 9. The “second inner diameter” can not refer to the inner diameter of both elements. If Applicant intended to define another “second inner diameter,” then the later limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Finally, how can the third inner diameter be both “larger than the second inner diameter” and also “substantially equal to the second inner diameter” as recited in the claim?
Claim 22 suffers from all of the same problems recited above with regard to claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Born
Claim(s) 10, 13-14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Born et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0114103). Born is directed to a displacement element. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion.
Claim 10: Born discloses a cushioning member [Figs. 2, 3], comprising: a cylinder (5) comprising a cylindrical shape with at least three inner walls [see Figs. 2, 3 (wall at bottom of 10; multiple walls at 10 between grooves 13; wall between 9 and 10; multiple walls at 9 between grooves 12; wall at top of 9)] and a plurality of steps between the at least three inner walls [see Figs. 2, 3 (step between wall at bottom of 10 and multiple walls at 10 between grooves 13; steps at grooves 13; step to wall between 9 and 10; steps at grooves 12; step to wall at top of 9)]; a piston (15, 25) configured to reciprocate along the longitudinal direction in the cylinder and including, on an outer peripheral surface, a packing (36) having a truncated cone shape and inscribed with the cylinder; and a piston rod (8) configured to move the piston along the a least three inner walls of the cylinder. See Figs. 2, 3.
Claim 13: Born discloses that the packing has a truncated cone shape, and a concentric circular groove is formed in a surface corresponding to a bottom surface of a truncated cone. See Fig. 3.
Claim 14: Born discloses that the cushioning member is an air damper. See para. 0041-42.
Claim 22: Born discloses a first inner diameter of a first inner wall [see Figs. 3, 4 (wall at 10 with grooves 13, from groove to opposite groove)] of the at least three inner walls is larger than a second inner diameter of a second inner wall [see Figs. 3, 4 (wall at 9 with grooves 12, from inner wall to opposite inner wall)] of the at least three inner walls, a first step [see Fig. 3 (step between walls 9 and 10)] of the plurality of steps comprises an inclined surface connecting the first inner wall and the second inner wall, a fourth inner diameter of a second step [see Fig. 3 (step to the bottom wall of 10)] of the plurality of steps is smaller than the second inner diameter of the second inner wall, a third inner diameter of a third inner wall [see Fig. 3 (wall at bottom of 10)] of the at least three inner walls is larger than the second inner diameter of the second step [see 112 rejection above], and the third inner diameter is substantially equal to the second inner diameter of the second inner wall. See Figs. 3, 4; see also 112 rejection above.
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.
Park in view of Born
Claim(s) 1-9 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20010058635) in view of Born. Park is directed to a cover damping apparatus for an electrophotographic printer. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Park discloses a printer apparatus [Fig. 2], comprising: a lower housing (20) having an opening on one surface; an upper cover (40) rotatably connected to the lower housing and configured to cover the opening; and a cushioning member (60) including a cylinder (63) fixed to the lower housing and having a cylindrical shape, a piston [see Translation (“main damper 60 includes a piston member”)] that reciprocates along the longitudinal direction in the cylinder, and a piston rod (61) configured to move the piston along an inner wall of the cylinder and fixed to the upper cover. See Fig. 2.
Park discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the specific structure of the cylinder inner wall, namely, that is has “at least three inner walls.” Born is directed to a similar piston-cylinder damper used in damping the opening/closing of a cover [see Fig. 1; para. 0002], wherein the cushioning member [Figs. 2, 3] includes a piston (15, 25) connected to a piston rod (8) and within a cylinder (5), wherein the cylinder has at least three inner walls [see Figs. 2, 3 (wall at bottom of 10; multiple walls at 10 between grooves 13; wall between 9 and 10; multiple walls at 9 between grooves 12; wall at top of 9)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date the invention to employ this feature in the Park cylinder in order to achieve different damping properties in different sections of the damper and, therefore, during different phases of opening/closing the cover of a device. This is an attractive feature for users to ensure appropriate speeds of opening/closing devices.
Claim 2: Born discloses that the cylinder includes a plurality of steps on the cylindrical inner wall. See Figs. 2, 3 (step between wall at bottom of 10 and multiple walls at 10 between grooves 13; steps at grooves 13; step to wall between 9 and 10; steps at grooves 12; step to wall at top of 9).
Claim 3: Born discloses that the piston includes, on an outer peripheral surface of the piston, a packing (36) inscribed with the cylinder. See Fig. 3.
Claim 4: Born discloses that the packing has a truncated cone shape, and a concentric circular groove is formed in a surface corresponding to a bottom surface of a truncated cone. See Fig. 3.
Claim 5: Born discloses that the cushioning member is an air damper. See para. 0041-42.
Claim 6: Park discloses that the upper cover is rotatably connected to the lower housing via a hinge including a biasing member (53) fixed to a side surface of the lower housing at one end by a first fixing member. See Figs. 2-4, 7.
Claim 7: Park discloses that the biasing member is a torsion spring and the first fixing member is a screw. See Translation (“In addition, a torsion spring (not shown) may be installed in the shaft 51 in place of the auxiliary damper 53.”)
Claim 8: Park discloses that the biasing member is configured to decrease a speed of movement of the upper cover when the upper cover closes on the lower housing. See Translation (“the cover 40 is prevented from being suddenly rotated in the second section B”).
Claim 9: Park discloses a print head exposed when the upper cover is in an open position. See Fig. 2.
Claim 15: see claims 1 and 6 above.
Claims 16-20: see claim 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 above, respectively.
Claim 21: see claim 22 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the new limitation requiring the presence of “at least three inner walls” is not disclosed in the Born reference. See Remarks, pages 7-8. In response, there are a number of problems with this argument. It should first be noted that the claims have actually been ‘broadened’ in some respects, given that these cylinder walls no longer need to have different inner diameters nor do they need to be at different locations along the longitudinal direction of the cylinder. So, there are a plethora of ‘walls’ in the Born cylinder as seen in Figure 3, including but not limited to: the wall at the bottom of cylinder section 10; the multiple walls at cylinder section 10 located between the grooves 13 (as seen in Figure 4); the wall between cylinder sections 9 and 10; the multiple walls at cylinder section 9 between the grooves 12; and the wall at the top of cylinder section 9. So for example, the circumferentially spaced walls at cylinder section 10 separated by the grooves 13 is, by itself, sufficient to meet this limitation of “at least three inner walls.” While they all have the same inner diameter and all are located at the same longitudinal portion of the cylinder, that is now irrelevant for the sake of meeting this new broad limitation.
For subsequent dependent claims, the “steps” could refer to the grooves 12 and 13, and/or the longitudinal transitions between the various cylinder sections. The broadening of the claim language here permits numerous applications of the Born reference, which is why the rejection is ultimately maintained.
To the extent Applicant has attempted to provide some specificity with regard to the location of these walls and their inner diameters in new dependent claim 21, this claim unfortunately suffers from numerous section 112 indefiniteness problems, as discussed above. It is strongly suggested that Applicant consider significant clarifying and narrowing amendments to advance prosecution.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 November 14, 2025