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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Figures 1-3, in the reply filed on December 8, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 4 and 7-9 are withdrawn and Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are pending.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2021/0364780 to Kim et al. (Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
556
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Kim discloses a vibration absorption device for a head-up display driving module, the vibration absorption device comprising: a power generation unit (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed at one end of the head-up display driving module and configured to generate rotational force using a motor (See Annotated Fig. A) fixed through a motor mount (See Annotated Fig. A); and a cantilever-type dynamic absorber (See Annotated Fig. A) coupled to opposite ends of the motor mount to absorb vibration of the power generation unit.
Regarding Claim 2: Kim discloses a vibration absorption device of claim 1, further comprising: a vibration damping unit including a damper mount (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed at an upper side of the motor mount and a damper (See Annotated Fig. A) fitted into an open hole (See Annotated Fig. A) formed in the damper mount (See Annotated Fig. A), wherein the cantilever-type dynamic absorber (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to the damper by passing through the damper (See generally Figures 11 and 12 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 3: Kim discloses a vibration absorption device of claim 2, wherein: the motor mount includes an upper motor mount (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed at an upper side of the motor, and the cantilever-type dynamic absorber (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to each of two or more through- holes (See Annotated Fig. A) formed in opposite end portions of the upper motor mount in a first direction (See Annotated Fig. A).
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.
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) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding Claim 5: Kim does not specifically disclose a preset mass and a preset stiffness of the cantilever-type dynamic absorber. Nonetheless, the unspecified claimed mass and stiffness is not patentably distinct over the prior art. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”1 Here, the dimensions at issue are the mass and stiffness of the absorber. Kim discloses a vibration absorption device wherein the cantilever-type dynamic absorber has some unspecified mass and some unspecified stiffness. Moreover, even an unspecified mass and stiffness would have the effect of corresponding to a natural frequency (also unspecified) of the power generation unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to understand that the cantilever-type dynamic absorber of Kim has a preset mass and a preset stiffness that corresponds to some natural frequency of the power generation unit.
Regarding Claim 6: Kim discloses a vibration absorption device of claim 5, wherein the cantilever-type dynamic absorber (See Annotated Fig. A) is coupled to the motor mount (See Annotated Fig. A) through a fastening member (See Annotated Fig. A), and the target frequency is determined by varying a length of the fastening member. Note that the disclosure does not disclose any structure that varies the length of the fastening member aside from merely providing different fastening members of different lengths. Since no length was specified, the prior art need not show a specific length.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 12375789.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).