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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-14) in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) : 5. A method for suppressing resonance response of a target device, comprising: obtaining a target resonance frequency of the target device; and suppressing the resonance response of the target device at the target resonance frequency through a damping resonator. Step 1: The claim recites a method for suppressing resonance response. Thus, the claim is to a new and useful process, which is a statutory category of invention. Step 2A, Prong One : The limitation of “suppressing the resonance response of the target device at the target resonance frequency through a damping resonator” falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the “suppressing” could practically be performed in the human mind and/or physically by a human. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them perform the suppression, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Step 2A, Prong Two : Besides the abstract idea, the additional element of the method comprising obtaining a target resonance frequency of the target device. This additional element represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B : The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional element, which as explained previously is extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” is not limited to only non-transitory mediums. Nowhere in the Claims or Specification the medium is specified to exclude transitory mediums (e.g., carrier waves). In both paragraphs 0098 and 0099 of the Specification , the computer-readable storage medium is cited to include various media capable of storing program codes such as a removable storage device, a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic disk, or an optical disk. Accordingly, the medium could include any of the listed devices but does not exclude any other type of media (e.g., carrier waves). Thus, claims 10-14 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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) 5, 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriya et al. [Moriya] (US PGPub 2011/0066292) . As to claim 5 Moriya discloses a method for suppressing resonance response ( vibration ) of a target device (seat 6, see Fig. 1) , comprising: obtaining a target resonance frequency (vibration control target frequency; see paragraph 0056, lines 9-10) of the target device (see paragraph 0053, lines 5-8 and paragraph 0056, lines 7-10) ; and suppressing the resonance response ( cancel the vibration ) of the target device at the target resonance frequency through a damping resonator (dynamic vibration absorber/actuator 10 and auxiliary mass 11; see Fig. 1) (see paragraph 0052, lines 13-16 and paragraph 0055, lines 19-24) . As to claim 6 Moriya discloses t he method according to claim 5, further comprising after obtaining the target resonance frequency of the target device: based on the target resonance frequency, determining a frequency range matching the target resonance frequency; and adjusting an attribute parameter (vibration control force; see paragraph 0053, line 2/acceleration of the auxiliary mass 11; see paragraph 0055, lines 22-23) of the damping resonator to control an intrinsic frequency ( excitation frequency ) of the damping resonator within the frequency range (see paragraph 0053, lines 1-19) . As to claim 10 Moriya discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are executed by one or more controllers (control section 3, see Fig. 1) to perform: obtaining a target resonance frequency (vibration control target frequency; see paragraph 0056, lines 9-10) of a target device (seat 6, see Fig. 1) (see paragraph 0053, lines 5-8 and paragraph 0056, lines 7-10) ; and suppressing a resonance response ( cancel the vibration ) of the target device at the target resonance frequency through a damping resonator (dynamic vibration absorber/actuator 10 and auxiliary mass 11; see Fig. 1) ( see paragraph 0052, lines 13-16 and paragraph 0055, lines 19-24 ) . As to claim 11 Moriya discloses t he computer-readable storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to perform after obtaining the target resonance frequency of the target device: based on the target resonance frequency, determining a frequency range matching the target resonance frequency; and adjusting an attribute parameter (vibration control force; see paragraph 0053, line 2/acceleration of the auxiliary mass 11; see paragraph 0055, lines 22-23) of the damping resonator to control an intrinsic frequency ( excitation frequency ) of the damping resonator within the frequency range (vibration control force; see paragraph 0053, line 2/acceleration of the auxiliary mass 11; see paragraph 0055, lines 22-23) of the damping resonator to control an intrinsic frequency ( excitation frequency ) of the damping resonator within the frequency range (see paragraph 0053, lines 1-19) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya et al. [Moriya] (US PGPub 2011/0066292) in view of Inoue (US PGPub 2018/0180131) . As to claim 8 Moriya discloses t he method as cited in claim 6, wherein: the attribute parameter includes a mass parameter of a mass block (auxiliary mass 11, see Fig. 1) and a stiffness parameter of a damping block; and adjusting the attribute parameter of the damping resonator to make the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator fall within the frequency range (see paragraph 0053, lines 1-19). However, Moriya fails to specifically teach the attribute adjusting includes: adjusting the mass parameter and/or the stiffness parameter according to a formula 2πω= √( k / m ) to control the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator within the frequency range, wherein, k is the stiffness parameter, m is the mass parameter, and ω is the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator. Inoue discloses a method wherein adjusting an attribute parameter of a damping resonator (dynamic damper 38, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7) includes: adjusting the mass parameter ( mass M ) and/or the stiffness parameter ( spring constant K/rigidity ) according to a formula 2πω= √( k / m ) to control the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator within the frequency range, wherein, k is the stiffness parameter, m is the mass parameter, and ω is the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10) . Moriya and Inoue are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is dynamic damper (vibration absorber) control. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Moriya’s invention with Inoue’s in order to use inertia of the movable mass ( auxiliary mass 11 ) to reduce vibrations, since doing so would make it possible to match vibration frequency (see Inoue paragraph 0069). As to claim 9 Inoue discloses t he method according to claim 8, wherein: the stiffness parameter of the damping block further includes a size parameter and a hardness parameter; and the stiffness parameter is determined based on the size parameter and the hardness parameter (see paragraph 0068) . As to claim 13 Moriya discloses t he computer-readable storage medium as cited in claim 11 , wherein: the attribute parameter includes a mass parameter of a mass block (auxiliary mass 11, see Fig. 1) and a stiffness parameter of a damping block; and adjusting the attribute parameter of the damping resonator to make the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator fall within the frequency range (see paragraph 0053, lines 1-19). However, Moriya fails to specifically teach the attribute adjusting includes: adjusting the mass parameter and/or the stiffness parameter according to a formula 2πω= √( k / m ) to control the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator within the frequency range, wherein, k is the stiffness parameter, m is the mass parameter, and ω is the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator. Inoue discloses a computer-readable storage medium wherein adjusting an attribute parameter of a damping resonator (dynamic damper 38, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7) includes: adjusting the mass parameter ( mass M ) and/or the stiffness parameter ( spring constant K/rigidity ) according to a formula 2πω= √( k / m ) to control the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator within the frequency range, wherein, k is the stiffness parameter, m is the mass parameter, and ω is the intrinsic frequency of the damping resonator (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-5 and paragraph 0069, lines 1-10) . Moriya and Inoue are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is dynamic damper (vibration absorber) control. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Moriya’s invention with Inoue’s in order to use inertia of the movable mass ( auxiliary mass 11 ) to reduce vibrations, since doing so would make it possible to match vibration frequency (see Inoue paragraph 0069). As to claim 14 Inoue discloses t he computer-readable storage medium according to claim 13, wherein: the stiffness parameter of the damping block further includes a size parameter and a hardness parameter; and the stiffness parameter is determined based on the size parameter and the hardness parameter (see paragraph 0068) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Moriya and Inoue, individually or in combination, fail to specifically disclose the method or computer-readable storage medium wherein determining the frequency range matching the target resonance frequency based on the target resonance frequency includes: obtaining a frequency adjustment threshold; determining a difference between the target resonance frequency and the frequency adjustment threshold to be a lower limit; determining a sum of the target resonance frequency and the frequency adjustment threshold to be an upper limit; and determining a range between the lower limit and the upper limit to be the frequency range matching the target resonance frequency ( in regards to dependent claims 7 and 12 ) . Accordingly, dependent claims 7 and 12 include allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Michael J Brown/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115