DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
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 1-14 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 1 line 10 the limitation of “… magnetic path formation members 44 to which the magnetic field is applied by the magnetic unit are arranged on sidewall portions on both sides facing each other in the orifice path..” is not understood. “Sidewall portions on both sides” of what element? The same problem exists on line 12 as well.
On the last line it is unclear exactly what is meant by “facing direction”.
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)(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- 5,7,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ichikawa et al. U.S. 2021/0381577.
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, subject to the 112 rejection above (and as best understood) Ichikawa shows one of applicant’s prior vibration damping devices including:
A fluid-filled cylindrical vibration damping device, wherein an inner shaft member 14 and an outer shaft member 16 are elastically linked by a main rubber elastic body 18, and a plurality of fluid chambers 38,38 in which a fluid is filled are provided to be in communication with each other through an orifice path 40 , wherein the fluid filled in the fluid chambers is a magnetic functional fluid, the fluid-filled cylindrical vibration damping device comprises a magnetic unit 56 generating a magnetic field through power conduction, magnetic path formation members 42, 86, 120, 140, 150 (see figs 3, 7, 11, 15, 17) to which the magnetic field is applied by the magnetic unit are “arranged on sidewall portions on both sides facing each other in the orifice path, and a magnetic flux concentration part 42, 86, 120, 140, 150 (as per applicant’s) is provided at at least one the magnetic path formation members arranged on the sidewall portions of the both sides, and a dimension of the magnetic flux concentration part in a length direction of the orifice path is reduced toward an inward side in a facing direction.
Regarding claim 2 see the discussion in para 0073 and note (for example) the linking part at 88, 92, 128.
Regarding claim 3 note element 92 may be interpreted as a ‘linking part’. This element is formed from non-magnetic material (rubber).
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, these elements are met.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, the magnetic flux formation members can be said to be linked by ‘post fixing’ the linking part 92 (separate component).
Regarding claim 7, as readily apparent from the figures, these limitations are met.
Regarding claim 11 note the intermediate sleeve at 24.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-10,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa ‘577.
Regarding claim 8 Ichikawa lacks specifically showing of one of the magnetic flux concentration parts 42, 86, 120, 140, 150 in the embodiments above having a “… tapered portion whose dimension in the length direction of the orifice path is gradually reduced…”.
However Ichikawa does show in that the shape of the magnetic flux concentration parts 42, 86, 120, 140, 150 can vary.
It would have simply amounted to an alterative embodiment in Ichikawa to have provided a magnetic flux concentration part with a tapered portion, as claimed, since it is well known in the art that changing the cross-sectional shape of a magnetic flux concentrating member alters the magnetic field distribution, flux density, and direction of the magnetic field lines. This would be done simply to adapt the vibration mount to different applications.
Regarding claims 9,10,12-14 in light of the explanation above these limitations are considered to be minor obvious variations to the shape of the magnetic path formation members. Note the ‘linking part’, as broadly claimed at 88, 92, and/or 128.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
12/15/25