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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwayama et al. (US 6,499,730).
In Re claim 1, Kuwayama et al. disclose a tubular vibration damping device (figs. 7 and 8), comprising: an inner shaft member (driver shaft – not shown); an outer tubular member (12); and a main rubber elastic body (50) connected between the two tubular members, wherein the main rubber elastic body further comprises: a plurality of first identification protrusions (54); and a plurality of second identification protrusions (58), wherein the first and second identification protrusions are formed on opposing axial surfaces, and are arranged at positions differing from each other in the circumferential direction (see 60 degree offset ribs 56), and wherein the overall pattern weight balance is comprehensively maintained on a central axis (see even spacing in fig. 8). The examiner notes that the claim does not preclude the projections from having some circumferential overlap (see claim 5 specifically detailing such a feature).
In Re claim 2, the first and second protrusion pattern is the same (see figs. 7 and 8).
In Re claim 3, the first and second protrusions are all the same size and shape (see figs. 7 and 8).
In Re claim 4, the first and second protrusions all extend in an axial direction with equal width (see figs. 7 and 8).
In Re claim 6, an equal number of first and second protrusions are provided (see figs. 7 and 8).
In Re claim 7, the first and second protrusions are provided at equal intervals (see figs. 7 and 8).
In Re claim 8, Kuwayama et al. disclose “eight” protrusions in one embodiment (see col. 13, lines 10-11).
In Re claim 9, the tubular vibration damping device is a mass inertia damper (col. 1, lines 8-15).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiratori et al. (US 4,465,296).
In Re claim 1, Shiratori et al. disclose a tubular vibration damping device (figs. 3), comprising: an inner shaft member (42); an outer tubular member (46); and a main rubber elastic body (44) connected between the two tubular members, wherein the main rubber elastic body further comprises: a plurality of first identification protrusions (58, 62); and a plurality of second identification protrusions (64, 68), wherein the first and second identification protrusions are formed on opposing axial surfaces, and are arranged at positions differing from each other in the circumferential direction (see figs. 5 and 6; col. 4, lines 53-54), and wherein the overall pattern weight balance is comprehensively maintained on a central axis (see even spacing in fig. 6).
In Re claim 2, the first and second protrusion pattern is the same (see figs. 4-6).
In Re claim 3, the first and second protrusions are all the same size and shape (see figs. 4-6).
In Re claim 4, the first and second protrusions all extend in an axial direction with equal width (see figs. 4-6).
In Re claim 5, the first and second protrusions do no overlap with each other in the circumferential direction or axial projection (see figs. 4-6).
In Re claim 6, an equal number of first and second protrusions are provided (see figs. 4-6).
In Re claim 7, the first and second protrusions are provided at equal intervals (see figs. 4-6).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori et al. (US 4,465,296).
In Re claim 8, Shiratori et al. fail to specifically disclose four or more protrusions. However, Shiratori et al. further disclose that “the size, number and arrangement of the [protrusions]… are determined as needed according to their function and performance required” (cols. 6-7, lines 66-2). Therefore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vibration damping device of Shiratori et al. to include four or more protrusions, as a matter of engineering and research and development design choice, simply to change the performance and characteristics of the damping device to meet different operational demands. The examiner additionally notes that it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616