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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that Storace does not disclose ““the fluid damper and wire mesh damper being located in the cavity, such that the wire mesh damper is immersed in the damper oil”. This new limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) as discussed in the rejections below. The 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn and the applicant’s arguments are therefore moot.
It is noted the examiner finds that the wire mesh (56) of Storace is implicitly immersed in the damper oil. (56) is shown schematically in Figure 2 as simply a cross-hatched (cylindrical) block with a oil inlet hole (76) formed through it. The examiner notes that (56) is described as made of “metal mesh material comprising woven metal strands”. The woven metal strands implicitly have some degree of space between them forming a “mesh”. To damp vibration, the metal mesh also encounters strong forces which compress it. In a relaxed state of the mesh, the openings would be larger and allow oil to pass through, while in a compressed state of the mesh, the oil inlet passage would be required for the oil to pass through. Therefore, Storace is found to implicitly disclose the wire mesh being immersed in the oil.
The rejections below are final as they are necessitated by the amendments.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 17, and 20-23 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.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite, “the fluid damper and wire mesh damper being located in the cavity”. The specification of the instant application has the fluid damper as 102 and the cavity as 218. The specification does not explicitly recite the claimed limitation. Paragraph [0013] recites, “the first fluid damper includes a damper housing having an outer rim, an inner rim, and a first cavity defined between the outer rim and the inner rim”. Based on this paragraph and the what is consistent with nomenclature in art, the first fluid damper is the a larger system and includes/defines a cavity. It therefore cannot be said that the first fluid damper is located in the cavity. Furthermore, paragraphs [0097] and [0099] recite, “the damper oil 219 is contained within the first cavity 218 and the wire mesh 106 is contained within the first cavity 218 immersed in the damper oil 219.” “the wire mesh 106 is located in the same first cavity 218 as the damper oil 219 and is submersed in the damper oil 219”. While damper oil is contained/located in the cavity, the originally filed disclosure does not have support for, the fluid damper itself being “located in the cavity”.
The remainder of the claims are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 15, and 20.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 17, and 20-23 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.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 recite, “the fluid damper and wire mesh damper being located in the cavity”. The specification of the instant application has the fluid damper as 102 and the cavity as 218. The specification does not explicitly recite the claimed limitation. Paragraph [0013] recites, “the first fluid damper includes a damper housing having an outer rim, an inner rim, and a first cavity defined between the outer rim and the inner rim”. Based on this paragraph and the what is consistent with nomenclature in art, the first fluid damper is the a larger system and includes/defines a cavity. It therefore cannot be said that the first fluid damper is located in the cavity. Furthermore, paragraphs [0097] and [0099] recite, “the damper oil 219 is contained within the first cavity 218 and the wire mesh 106 is contained within the first cavity 218 immersed in the damper oil 219.” “the wire mesh 106 is located in the same first cavity 218 as the damper oil 219 and is submersed in the damper oil 219”. While damper oil is contained/located in the cavity, the originally filed disclosure does not support, the fluid damper itself being “located in the cavity”.
Based on the above, it is unclear what the fluid damper being located in the cavity requires as the fluid damper is a larger system which includes the cavity. An illustrative example of the indefiniteness similar to the applicant’s may be:
The car is located within the engine bay.
The remainder of the claims are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 15, and 20.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights