DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 04/28/26 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are still pending. Despite the substantive claim amendments, the previous 102 and 103 rejections are maintained as detailed below.
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, the side stopper rubber has, in a protrusion direction, a base end, a tip end, and an intermediate portion between the base end and the tip end, in the entire side stopper rubber, only the intermediate portion is provided with a concave groove [see annotated Fig. 1, infra (since stopper extends from base end to tip end, the groove in the middle/intermediate portion of 12 is the only groove in the stopper)] extending in a circumferential direction of the side stopper rubber and the side stopper rubber has a buffer protrusion [see Fig. 1 (radially-outer end of 12)] protruding from a protrusion tip end surface of the side stopper. See Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 102-rejection due to the Liu reference. Specifically, Applicant claims that since “the base end and the intermediate portion are both provided with a concave groove,” Liu fails to disclose the newly added limitation requiring that the only groove in the entire stopper rubber is in the intermediate portion. See Remarks, pages 7-8 (emphasis added). This is incorrect. As seen in the annotated figure below, the Liu stopper rubber extends from the base end to the tip end, with the intermediate portion in between. Hence, the one groove in this intermediate portion is the only groove in the entire stopper rubber.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant appears to believe that the other groove – the groove that exists between the stopper rubber and the tubular part – is a groove “in” the stopper rubber. It is not. While it may be at least partially defined by the stopper rubber, it is NOT “in” the stopper rubber. For this reason, the rejection is maintained as detailed above.
Applicant should be mindful of other prior art when submitting any additional claim amendments. For example, even if claim 1 were amended to recite that there is only one groove --in or defined by-- the stopper rubber, previously cited JP 2006-05751 discloses this feature in Figure 3. Applicant should consider very narrowly tailored language to move prosecution forward.
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 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 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights