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 .
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) 19, 23-25, 28, 29, 31, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3816482 (EP’482) in view of US Patent Application 2006/0037809 to Fuller et al.
Re: claims 19, 31, and 37. EP’482 shows in figure 1A a method of manufacturing a damping device, for damping vibrations and/or absorbing shocks, comprising the steps of: S1) implementing an Additive Manufacturing step to produce a monolithic structure as described in in paragraph [0037] comprising a first flexible element 131 essentially having a sheet or blade-like geometry and at least a second flexible element 132 essentially having a sheet or blade- like geometry and extending substantially parallel to said first flexible element, wherein at least said first flexible element comprises at least one through-going aperture 134, S2) Providing a material, in the region between said first flexible element and said at least second flexible element, which is adapted to change of physical and/or chemical state to turn into a viscoelastic material when the material is submitted to a suitable predefined treatment as described in paragraph [0028], and S3) Applying said suitable predefined treatment to said material to conform a dissipative layer of viscoelastic material as described in paragraph [0028], extending between said first flexible element 131 and said at least second flexible element 132 and secured to both of said first flexible element 131 and said at least second flexible element 132, wherein said at least one through going aperture is at least partially filled by the viscoelastic material as shown in figure 1A, but is silent with regard to the at least one through-going aperture representing between 10-80% of the surface of the first flexible element.
EP’482 shows the at least one through-going aperture 134 representing a percentage of the surface of the first flexible element, but is silent with regard to the percentage being between 10% and 80%.
Fuller et al. teach in figure 14 the use of a plurality of perforations or holes 172 representing between 10-80% (showing at least half) of the surface of the first element 170.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the percentage of the surface of EP’482 being represented by the at least one through-going aperture being between 10-80%, in view of the teachings of Fuller et al., in order to provide a means of not only improving the coupling between the two flexible elements but also increasing the energy dissipation or damping capacity by having more holes/apertures through which the viscoelastic material can flow.
Also see In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re: claim 23. EP’482 shows in figure 1A wherein the additive manufacturing step S1 is implemented so as to provide the at least second flexible element 132 with at least one through going aperture 135 and wherein the steps S2 and S3 are implemented in such a way that the at least one through going aperture 135 is at least partially filled with the viscoelastic material of the dissipative layer as shown.
Re: claim 24. EP’482 shows in figure 1A in an alternate interpretation the first flexible element 133 comprising an internal surface shown at the end of the lead line of 133, facing an internal or left surface of at least second flexible element 131, and an external or left surface opposite said internal surface shown at the end of line 133, wherein said steps S2 and S3 are implemented in such a way that said dissipative layer described in paragraph [0028] and shown at 150 extends beyond a through-going aperture 136 or at least one of said plurality of through-going apertures so as to cover at least partially said external or left surface of said first flexible element 133.
Re: claims 25 and 36. EP’482 shows in figure 1A wherein said Additive Manufacturing step S1 is implemented so as to provide said monolithic structure with at least one additional flexible layer 133 having a sheet or blade-like geometry, extending substantially parallel to said first 131 and second 132 flexible elements, so as to form a sandwich structure defined by two external flexible elements and at least one internal flexible element, the at least one internal flexible element being provided with at least one through-going aperture 136, wherein the region between all the flexible elements of said monolithic structure is filled by said viscoelastic material of said dissipative layer as shown in figure 1A and described in paragraph [0028], including said at least one through-going aperture 136.
Re: claim 28. EP’482 shows in figure 1A and describes in paragraph [0028] wherein the viscoelastic material is a polymer, and wherein the step S3 includes a curing operation chosen from the group comprising applying UV radiation, applying heat, or waiting the necessary time to complete a polymerization or vulcanization reaction or particularly applying heat as the operating temperature reaches the transition phase temperature range of the viscoelastic material as described in the cited paragraph.
Re: claims 29 and 35. EP’482 describes in paragraph [0002] and in the title the limitation wherein the monolithic structure is provided with a mechanical mounting organ or coupled to portion of the described gas turbine engine that receives the damping benefits.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP’482 in view of Fuller et al. as applied above, and further in view of DE-102004027691 (DE’691).
EP’482, as modified, is silent with regard to the inclusion of the operation of providing at least one sacrificial bridge that is ultimately removed in an additional step.
DE’691 teaches in claim 8 the use of a layered component including the provision of a sacrificial bridge that is ultimately removed in an additional step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the layered component or damping device of EP’482, as modified, to have included the provision of at least one sacrificial bridge and the steps to have included the ultimate removal of the sacrificial bridge, in view of the teachings of DE’691, in order to provide a means of enabling the precise creation of internal cavities during manufacturing procedures.
Claim(s) 22 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP’482 in view of Fuller et al. as applied above, and further in view of WO-9922160 (WO’160).
EP’482, as modified, is silent with regard to the at least second flexible element having at least one protrusion extending in the direction of the first flexible element.
WO’160 teaches in figure 4 the use of a second flexible element 2 having at least one protrusion 4 extending in the direction of the first flexible element 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second flexible element of EP’482, as modified, to have included at least one protrusion extending in the direction of the first flexible element, in view of the teachings of WO’160, in order to provide improved load transfer into the damping layer and improved interlocking in the viscoelastic material.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP’482 in view of Fuller et al., as applied above, and further in view of US Patent Application 2007/0062758 to Jensen et al.
EP’482, as modified, is silent with regard to a permanent rigid connection between the first and second flexible elements.
Jensen teaches in figure 4 the use of a permanent rigid connection 24 between first 16 and second 26 elements of a damping device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the connection of the first and second flexible elements of EP’482, as modified, to have included a permanent rigid connection, in view of the teachings of Jensen et al., in order to provide improved structural integrity of the damping device to help extend the overall life of the device.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP’482 in view of Fuller et al. as applied above, and further in view of JP-2010031640 (JP’640).
EP’482, as modified, is silent with regard to the particular tan delta range.
JP’640 teaches in claim 2 the use of a damping means having a tan delta greater than 0.1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the tan delta of the damping layer of EP’482, as modified, to have been greater than 0.1, in view of the teachings of JP’640, in order to provide increased energy dissipation and damping capabilities.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP’482 in view of Fuller et al. as applied above, and further in view of US 3251076 to Burke.
EP’482, as modified, is silent with regard to the at least second flexible element having at least one protrusion extending in the direction of the first flexible element.
Burke teaches in figure 8 the use of a second flexible element B1 having at least one protrusion 102 extending in the direction of the first flexible element A1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second flexible element of EP’482, as modified, to have included at least one protrusion extending in the direction of the first flexible element, in view of the teachings of Burke, in order to provide improved load transfer into the damping layer and improved interlocking in the viscoelastic material. Examiner notes that the combination would result in the at least one protrusion 102 extending at least partially through at least one aperture 116 of a first flexible element A1 to further improve the stability of the damping device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that EP’482 does not disclose a damping device and flexure guide mechanism. To support his position Applicant explains that EP’482 shows an essentially rigid gear part. Examiner disagrees. In the English abstract of EP’482 the device 100 is explicitly described as a damping apparatus. Examiner maintains that since the sidewalls of EP’482 have the geometry of a sheet, they will be flexible under sufficient enough force. Applicant next argues that there is no motivation to have modified the at least one through-going aperture of EP’482 to have represented 10-80% of the surface of the flexible element because such a modification would drastically reduce the rigidity of the walls in which the apertures are disposed. Examiner disagrees and notes that 10-80% is a very wide range and further notes that through-going apertures making up 10% of the surface would not cause a drastic change in the rigidity of the wall because it’s a relatively small percentage. Regarding the arguments on pg. 7 of the most recent remarks with respect to the Fuller et al. reference, Examiner notes that Fuller et al. was used solely for the teaching of the at least one through going aperture representing the recited percentage of the surface of the element. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the above art rejections have been maintained. The previously presented 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
September 11, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights