DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2026 has been entered.
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 Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending in the application. Claim 4 is cancelled.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant clarifying that the “Description of Embodiments” is representing the “Summary of Invention” as required via MPEP 608.01(a). Further, the objection to the abstract has been withdrawn, although the examiner doesn’t agree with applicant’s previous amendment. It is the examiner’s opinion that the first sentence in abstract seems incomplete, however, it is still a sentence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant’s argument that “applicants do not find Nerubenko to teach or suggest "a spring coupled with said mass...having a spring rate" AND "an active component coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient", as is explicitly recited in newly amended Independent Claim 1, newly amended Independent Claim 16 and newly amended Independent Claim 20…………Hence, Nerubenko explicitly teaches away from, and does not show or suggest, "a sprine coupled with said mass...having a spring rate" OR "an active component coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient", as is recited in each of newly amended Independent Claim 1, newly amended Independent Claim 16 and newly amended Independent Claim 20.” has been acknowledged including citation from Nerubenko ([0095]) by applicant. Note: the claim limitations pertaining to claim 1 argued in the response seem to be different from the current amendment to claim 1, i.e., the current amendment removed the limitation “at least one of” from the last line in claim 1, however, applicant is using the limitation in the arguments. The Nerubenko prior art does disclose that the biasing members pointed out in arguments by applicant are in fact “springs” ([0096]-[0097]) which are coupled to a mass (226) which forms the tuned mass damper. Therefore, Nerubenko doesn’t explicitly teach away from the limitations as recited in claims 1, 16 and 20. Further, the "976" component recited by the examiner in the rejection can be considered "an active component" as recited per the component being coupled to the TMD as shown in Figures 11c-12 and electronically adjusting the spring rate as described in [0187]-[0188] in specification.
-Applicant's argument that "applicants do not find Bonesho to teach or suggest "an active component coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient", as is explicitly recited in newly amended Independent Claim 1." has been acknowledged; however, the "valves as shown in Figure 12" recited by the examiner in the rejection can be considered "an active component" as recited per the component being coupled to the TMD as shown in Figures 1 and 3 and electronically adjusting the spring rate as described in column 10, line 73 to column 11, line 15 in specification.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein both said spring rate and said damping coefficient are adjustable during said vehicle's operation to modify said frequency damped by said TMD.”. Based on claim 1 currently being amended to cover the scope of claim 2 by reciting in last two lines “said active component configured to electronically adjust said spring rate and said damping coefficient.”, it is unclear as to what claim 2 is further limiting in scope pertaining to claim 1 and is therefore, indefinite.
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, 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); a spring (938) coupled with said mass, said 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) and an active component (976) coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust said spring rate and said damping coefficient provide both vibration damping and energy harvesting, over a broad range of frequencies ([0179]-[0188]).
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 ([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; [0179]-[0188]).
As to claim 3, further comprising: a controller (980) configured to receive sensor information and determine said modified frequency.
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), a spring (i.e., 638, 1032) coupled with said mass, said spring having a spring rate ([0096] describes fixed members having a fixed stiffness coefficient) and an active component (674) 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 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); a spring (1032) coupled with said mass, said 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]) and an active component (electromagnetic; [0203]) coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust at least one of said spring rate and said damping coefficient.
Claim(s) 1-3 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); a spring (38) coupled with said mass, said 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) and an active component (any of valves as shown in Figure 12) coupled with said TMD, said active component configured to electronically adjust said spring rate and said damping coefficient.
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 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 the 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.
-Trangbaek et al 20150231942 discloses a tuned mass damper and shows that it is well known in the art to use an active component (via electric motor/screw) to electronically adjust damping coefficient.
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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights