DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/409689 filed 1/10/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/10/24, 9/20/24 and 3/27/25 have been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the implied phrase “is disclosed” should be deleted in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-The specification currently lacks “Summary of Invention” heading, please clarify if “Description of Embodiments” in specification is currently representing the summary of invention section/heading or amend accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-said active component (generic placeholder) configured to electronically adjust……(function) in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14, 15, 17 and 20 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 14 and 20 recite the limitation “a purposely oriented magnet stack”. It is unclear as to what the phrase “purposely oriented” is referring to, please clarify.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said vehicle’s operation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to the limitation not being recited (introduced) in claim 16 from which this claim depends from.
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, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nerubenko et al 20200076288 (IDS cited art). As to claim 1, Nerubenko discloses a tuned mass damper (Figures 11c-12) comprising: a mass (926); at least one spring (938) coupled with said mass, said at least one spring having a spring rate ([0096] describes fixed members having a fixed stiffness coefficient); and a damper (940) to dampen a motion of said mass, said damper comprising a damping coefficient ([0097] describes dampers as having adjustable stiffness coefficient), wherein at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during a vehicle's operation to modify a frequency damped by said TMD ([0187]-[0188] describes that the damper coefficient for 940 is adjusted to modify the frequency vibration of the mass 926 to match frequency of vibration of structure).
As to claim 3, further comprising: a controller (980) configured to receive sensor information and determine said modified frequency.
As to claim 4, further comprising: an active component (976) coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient.
As to claim 8, wherein said damper is a fluid (Figures 8a-10 show that it is well known in the art to provide damper in the form of a fluid).
As to claim 9, wherein said damping coefficient of said fluid is adjusted by modifying a flow rate through a flow port in said mass (690 is considered mass due to housing 626), said flow rate controlled by an active valve (694; [0149] describes 694 having similar operation as a valve).
As to claim 14, further comprising (Figure 13): said mass (1026) comprising: a sliding surface (via 1034); and a purposely oriented magnet stack (1040 within 1026); and said damper is electromagnetic ([0203]), such that said TMD is configured to provide a tuned damp and harvest energy with a movement of said mass (as described in last five lines in [0202]).
As to claim 15, wherein said harvested energy is provided to a component other than said TMD ([0125] describes harvested energy can be provided for storage in 284).
As to claim 16, Nerubenko discloses a tuned mass damper (Figures 8a-10 and 13) comprising: a mass (i.e., 690, 1026), wherein at least a portion of said mass is a damping fluid to dampen a motion of said mass (as described in [0160] and [0199]), said damping fluid having a damping coefficient ([0097] describes dampers as having adjustable stiffness coefficient), at least one spring (i.e., 638, 1032) coupled with said mass, said at least one spring having a spring rate ([0096] describes fixed members having a fixed stiffness coefficient).
As to claim 17, wherein at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during said vehicle's operation to modify said frequency damped by said TMD ([0187]-[0188] describes another embodiment wherein it is well known in the art to have the damper coefficient adjusted to modify the frequency vibration of the mass to match frequency of vibration of structure).
As to claim 19, wherein said damper comprises: at least one semi-active valve (694; [0149] describes 694 having similar operation as a valve).
As to claim 20, Nerubenko discloses a tuned mass damper (Figure 13) comprising: a mass (1026) comprising: a sliding surface (via 1034); and a purposely oriented magnet stack (1040 within 1026); at least one spring (1032) coupled with said mass, said at least one spring having a spring rate ([0096] describes fixed members having a fixed stiffness coefficient); and an electromagnetic damper ([0203]) to dampen a motion of said mass, said electromagnetic damper comprising a damping coefficient ([0097] describes dampers as having adjustable stiffness coefficient), wherein at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during a vehicle's operation to modify a frequency damped by said TMD ([0187]-[0188] describes another embodiment wherein it is well known in the art to have the damper coefficient adjusted to modify the frequency vibration of the mass to match frequency of vibration of structure), and wherein said TMD is configured to harvest energy with a movement of said mass (as described in last five lines in [0202]).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonesho et al 3483951 (IDS cited art). As to claim 1, Bonesho discloses a tuned mass damper (22) comprising: a mass (36); at least one spring (38) coupled with said mass, said at least one spring having a spring rate (k); and a damper (40, 62) to dampen a motion of said mass, said damper comprising a damping coefficient (c), wherein at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during a vehicle's operation to modify a frequency damped by said TMD (as shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15).
As to claim 2, wherein both said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during said vehicle's operation to modify said frequency damped by said TMD (as shown in Figures 3 and 12; column 4, lines 58-65 and column 11, lines 36-37).
As to claim 3, further comprising: a controller (as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 12) configured to receive sensor information and determine said modified frequency.
As to claim 4, further comprising: an active component (any of valves as shown in Figure 12) coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient.
As to claim 8, wherein said damper is a fluid (hydraulic fluid as described in column 6, lines 24-26 can be considered damper fluid).
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerubenko and Bonesho in view of WO 2015006576. Nerubenko and Bonesho both disclose at least one spring, but doesn’t disclose the springs being air springs adjusted by changing volume of air spring and adjusted by changing a pressure of a gas in air spring as recited.
WO discloses a tuned mass damper (106; [0038]) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide at least one spring as an air spring adjusted by changing volume of air spring by changing a pressure of a gas in air spring ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the springs in Nerubenko and Bonesho in the form of air springs in view of WO to lower weight of damper and provide easier adjustment of spring during operation of damper.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerubenko and Bonesho in view of KR 1020210062948 (with machine translation). Nerubenko and Bonesho both disclose fluid dampers, but doesn’t disclose the fluid being a smart fluid selected from a group consisting of: a magnetorheological fluid and an electrorheological fluid as recited.
KR discloses a tuned mass damper (abstract) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the fluid in the form of a smart fluid selected from a group consisting of: a magnetorheological fluid and an electrorheological fluid (page 2, lines 31-35)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damper fluid in Nerubenko and Bonesho in the form of a smart fluid selected from a group consisting of: a magnetorheological fluid and an electrorheological fluid in view of KR to increase overall rigidity of mass to effectively dampen vibration in low frequency region with large amplitude.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerubenko and Bonesho in view of WO 2015006576. Nerubenko and Bonesho both disclose the damper, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the vehicle location of the damper being selected from a group consisting of: externally, internally, and integrated as recited.
WO discloses a tuned mass damper ([0038]) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the damper in different locations of a vehicle including frame, cab of truck, seat and suspension system ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damper in Nerubenko and Bonesho in different locations of vehicle selected from a group consisting of: externally, internally, and integrated in view of WO to increase overall rigidity of vehicle during operation which further increases operating efficiency of vehicle during operation on variable road gradients.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerubenko and Bonesho in view of JP 04358916 (with machine translation). Nerubenko and Bonesho both disclose the damper wherein Nerubenko further discloses 690 acting as a reservoir and damper, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the damper coupled to a shock assembly as recited.
JP discloses a tuned mass damper ([0021] describes tuning operation of damper) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the damper coupled to a shock assembly (5, 6) and configured to act as a fluid reservoir (within 15) and damper.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damper in Nerubenko and Bonesho coupled to a shock assembly and configured to act as a fluid reservoir and damper in view of JP to increase overall rigidity of mass to effectively dampen vibration which increases operating efficiency of vehicle during operation on variable road gradients.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerubenko in view of JP 04358916 (with machine translation). Nerubenko discloses a damper having a mass 690 acting as a reservoir and damper, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the damper coupled to a shock assembly as recited.
JP discloses a tuned mass damper ([0021] describes tuning operation of damper) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the damper coupled to a shock assembly (5, 6) and configured to act as a fluid reservoir (within 15) and damper.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damper in Nerubenko coupled to a shock assembly and configured to act as a fluid reservoir and damper in view of JP to increase overall rigidity of mass to effectively dampen vibration which increases operating efficiency of vehicle during operation on variable road gradients.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The EP office action as filed has been reviewed by examiner and agreed that the prior art cited does meet the limitations of at least claims 1-4 and 8 of present invention.
-Hansma et al 20180266104 discloses a damper for a vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to use air springs in damper due to lower weight and easier adjustability of springs ([0102]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 April 4, 2026