Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/489,832

VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 18, 2023
Examiner
RASHID, MAHBUBUR
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sumitomo Riko Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
574 granted / 856 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 856 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2003. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Setoyama (US 2015/0061202 A1). Regarding claim 1, Setoyama discloses a vibration damping device (10) in which a first mounting member (16) and a second mounting member (18) are connected by a main rubber elastic body (20), and a separate stopper member (14) is accommodated in an accommodation recess (30) that opens in an axial direction in an inner circumference of a tubular part of the second mounting member, wherein a retaining part (46) that protrudes toward an inner circumference is provided at an opening of the accommodation recess, an outer shape of the stopper member (14 in figs. 5-6) is substantially quadrilateral, and lip-shaped parts (40, 42) that protrude from corner portions toward an outer circumference are provided at the stopper member, the lip-shaped part (40, 42, 44) is located further inward than the retaining part in the accommodation recess, and the lip-shaped part (40) overlaps the retaining part (46) in axial projection (fig. 15B), a rod insertion hole (36) through which a rod member (23) fixed to the first mounting member (16) is inserted is formed through the stopper member (14) in the axial direction, and a pair of facing side portions (40 in figs. 9-10) located on both sides in a direction perpendicular to an axis on an outer circumferential surface of the stopper member are spaced apart from an inner circumferential surface of the accommodation recess toward an inner circumference in a region extending to both outer sides of the rod insertion hole between the lip-shaped parts. Re-claim 2, Setoyama discloses another pair of facing side portions (38) located between the pair of facing side portions on the outer circumferential surface of the stopper member in a circumferential direction is in contact with the inner circumferential surface of the accommodation recess. Re-claims 3 and 8, Setoyama discloses a magnitude of curvature of the pair of facing side portions (40 in fig. 3) of the stopper member is smaller than a magnitude of curvature of a portion of the inner circumferential surface of the accommodation recess (30) that faces the pair of facing side portions. Re-claims 4 and 9, Setoyama discloses the pair of facing side portions (40) of the stopper member are planar, and the portion of the inner circumferential surface of the accommodation recess (30) that faces the pair of facing side portions is formed of a curved surface that is concave toward the inner circumference. Re-claims 5 and 10, Setoyama discloses the pair of facing side portions (40) of the stopper member have no partial recesses in the circumferential direction of the stopper member. Re-claims 6 and 11, Setoyama discloses the lip-shaped part (40, 42, 44) extends continuously in the axial direction. 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. 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. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setoyama (US 2015/0061202 A1). Regarding claims 7 and 12, Setoyama discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including an overlap allowance of the retaining part of the lip-shaped part (40, 42, 44) with respect to a wall portion of the accommodation recess (30) but fails to disclose the overlap allowance is set within a range of 70% to 100% of a protrusion height of the lip-shaped part when seen in the axial direction as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the invention was made to set the overlap allowance of the retaining part of the lip-shaped part with respect to a wall portion of the accommodation recess within a range of 70% to 100% of a protrusion height of the lip-shaped part when seen in the axial direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art will allow to obtain the target spring characteristics and an effective vibration damping effect. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST. 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 5712727124. 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. /MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590611
SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING A BRAKE FORCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584528
BRAKE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583425
BRAKE SYSTEM WITH SAFER EMERGENCY STOP FUNCTION AND METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578005
FLUID-FILLED VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571439
CALIPER BRAKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+20.4%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 856 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month