Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/500,126

VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 02, 2023
Examiner
SAHNI, VISHAL R
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sumitomo Riko Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
731 granted / 970 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 970 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 12/02/23. The request for foreign priority to a corresponding JP application filed 12/20/22 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-7 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 2 recitation that buffer protrusion is both buffer protrusion “arranged in a flat shape in…a length dimension” and also “arranged in a tapered shape…in a length direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Notably, Figure 2 does NOT appear to show that buffer protrusion 36 has a “flat shape.” See also Figs. 5, 6. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 2-7 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. Claims 2-6 are rejected because claim 2 recites that the buffer protrusion is “arranged in a flat shape in…a length dimension” but then subsequently recites that it is “arranged in a tapered shape…in a length direction.” See also Drawing Objection, supra. These conflicting limitations make the claim indefinite. Claim 7 is rejected because the last limitation appears to include an unintentional double negative. Specifically, the claim recites that the front stopper rubber is “not formed with neither the concave groove…nor the buffer protrusion…” The phrase “not formed with neither…” is a double negative and makes it unclear as to whether the rubber includes the recited features or not. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Liu Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 205371443 U). Liu is directed to a hydraulic suspension of an engine. See Abstract. Claim 1: Liu discloses a vibration damping device [Fig. 1], having a configuration in which a first mounting member (13) and a second mounting member (2) are elastically linked by a main rubber elastic body (11), wherein the first mounting member has a tubular part open and extending on a side; a side stopper rubber (12) is provided, the side stopper rubber protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the tubular part toward an outer circumference toward a side orthogonal to an axial direction of the tubular part, the side stopper rubber is arranged in a tapered shape toward a protrusion tip end, a concave groove [see Fig. 1 (groove in middle of 12)] extending in a circumferential direction of the side stopper rubber is formed in an intermediate portion excluding a base end and a tip end of the side stopper rubber in a protrusion direction, and a buffer protrusion [see Fig. 1 (radially-outer end of 12)] protruding from a protrusion tip end surface of the side stopper rubber is provided. See Fig. 1. 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. Liu in view of Trelleborg Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Trelleborg (JP 2006505751) (cited by Applicant). Trelleborg is directed to a hydraulically-damped brake mount. See Abstract. Claim 2: Liu discloses that the concave groove is formed on a tip end side with respect to a center of the side stopper rubber in the protrusion direction, but not formed on a base end side with respect to the center of the side stopper rubber in the protrusion direction, and the buffer protrusion is partially provided at a center of the protrusion tip end surface of the side stopper rubber. See Fig. 1. Liu discloses al the limitations of this claim except for the specific length/width characteristics of the side stopper rubber and shape characteristics of the buffer protrusion, since only one perspective is provided in the Liu drawings (i.e., a cross-section). Trelleborg discloses a vibration damping device [Fig. 3] with two mounting members (13, 50), a main elastic rubber body (10) and a side stopper rubber (16, 17) including a concave groove and a buffer protrusion (18) at protrusion tip end, wherein the side stopper rubber is arranged in a flat shape [see Fig. 3 (protrusion extends from ‘flat shape’ surface of 16/17)] in which a length dimension in the axial direction of the tubular part is greater than a width dimension orthogonal to the axial direction of the tubular part [see Fig. 4], the buffer protrusion is arranged in a flat shape in which a length dimension in the axial direction of the tubular part is greater than a width dimension orthogonal to the axial direction of the tubular part [see Fig. 4; see also drawing objection], and the buffer protrusion is arranged in a tapered shape in which a protrusion height dimension is reduced from a center in a length direction toward both outer sides [see Figs. 3, 4]. See Fig. 3, 4; see also Drawing Objection, supra. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the rubber to have a length dimension greater than a width dimension because these brake mounts are typically rectangular for containing the longitudinally extending engine support arm, and the various limitations concerning taper/flat shape is ultimately a design choice to provide desired damping effects, and cost in manufacturing and/or amount of material used. Claim 3: Liu a pair of concave grooves are formed on both side surfaces of the side stopper rubber in a width direction. See Fig. 1. Claim 4: Liu discloses that the concave grooves extend linearly to be substantially parallel to the axial direction of the tubular part on both side surfaces of the side stopper rubber in a width direction, and a protrusion height dimension on the tip end side with respect to the concave groove in the side stopper rubber is reduced toward both outer sides at both end portions in the axial direction of the tubular part. See Fig. 1. Claim 5: Liu discloses that the buffer protrusion is arranged in a tapered shape in which a protrusion height dimension is reduced from a center in a width direction toward both outer sides. See Fig. 1. Claim 6: Trelleborg discloses that a width of the side stopper rubber is reduced from the center in the length direction toward the both outer sides. See Figs. 3, 4. Liu in view of Goto Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Goto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,415,665). Goto is directed to a fluid-filled vibration-damping device. See Abstract. Claim 7: Liu discloses that in a vehicle mounted state in which the first mounting member and the second mounting member are mounted to a vehicle. See Translation. Liu discloses all the limitations of this claim except for specifics about the front and rear stopper rubbers, namely, the direction they protrude relative to the vehicle and one having a small height than the other. Goto discloses a vibration damping device [Fig. 6], a front stopper rubber (54 on right) protruding toward a front of the vehicle and a rear stopper rubber (54 on left) protruding toward a rear of the vehicle are provided [see col. 18, lines 7-44], the rear stopper rubber is arranged as the side stopper rubber, and the front stopper rubber has a protrusion height dimension smaller than the rear stopper rubber, and is not formed with neither the concave groove of the outer circumferential surface nor the buffer protrusion of the protrusion tip end surface. See Fig. 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the front and rear stoppers to have different protrusion heights because, based on the location of the engine in the vehicle, the damping characteristics required for each rubber may vary. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST. 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. VISHAL SAHNI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3657 /VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 January 14, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 02, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600335
TRAILER BRAKING THROUGH TRAILER SUPPLY LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590613
PAD SHIELD FOR DISC BRAKE SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR THE USE AND ASSEMBLY THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584527
BRAKE CALIPER WITH A COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576822
SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AN ELECTRIC PARKING BRAKE BY PULSE WIDTH MODULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577996
BRAKE SYSTEMS HAVING BACK PLATES WITH THERMAL MANAGEMENT FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
75%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+19.3%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 970 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