Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/507,079

LIQUID-FILLED TUBULAR VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 12, 2023
Examiner
IRVIN, THOMAS W
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sumitomo Riko Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
904 granted / 1174 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
§102
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1174 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to which any rubber is not fixed” is confusing, and should be amended to read -- to which no rubber is fixed --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “thickened” should be amended to read -- thicker --. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. (JP 2021032365 A) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 5,887,844). The examiner notes that US 2022/0282764 is reference herein as an English equivalent of the Japanese reference. In Re claim 1, Hosoda et al. disclose a liquid-filled vibration damping device (1), comprising: an inner axial member (12a); an intermediate sleeve (13) made of synthetic resin (par. 0029); a main rubber elastic body (14); an outer tubular member (11); a pair of liquid chambers (15); an orifice passage (16); an outer flange (see 23 and 32) formed at the axial end of the intermediate sleeve; an outer circumference rubber (23, 26) fixed to the outer circumferential surface of the intermediate sleeve and press-fit to the inner surface of the outer sleeve (Abstract); and an orifice groove formed in the outer circumference rubber and covered by the outer tubular member (see 16 in fig. 2). Hosoda et al. fail to disclose that the intermediate sleeve is formed of two pieces. Fujiwara et al. is related to the art of fluid-filled vibration dampers. Fujiwara et al. teach forming an intermediate sleeve of two pieces separated in the circumferential direction (see fig. 10 and 17). This assembly allows for easier and more precise manufacturing, thus decreasing the production costs of the device. Therefore, 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 intermediate sleeve of Hosoda et al. to be formed of two pieces, as taught by Fujiwara et al., to allow for easier and more precise manufacturing, thus decreasing the production costs of the device. The examiner additionally notes that it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04). In Re claim 2, Hosoda et al. disclose that the rubber (29) is pressed against the outer tubular member (11). In Re claim 3, with reference to fig. 5 of Hosoda et al., see stopper rubber (19) and contact rubber (23). In Re claim 4, see thicker central portion of 13 in fig. 1 of Hosoda et al.. In Re claims 5 and 6, see two windows (13a) of Hosoda et al.. The examiner points out that the orifice groove (16) extends to the windows (see fig. 3). In Re claim 7, as best understood this claim appears to describe a necessary function of the assembly of the two intermediate sleeve members. In the damping device above, as modified, the two intermediate sleeve members are necessarily brought together and a distance therebetween decreased for assembly and insertion into the outer tubular member. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 12, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594836
Method for Operating a Brake System of a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595832
BRAKE HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590615
BRAKE DISC SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583578
AIRCRAFT LANDING GEAR ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580113
SOLENOID, DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM, AND DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTABLE SHOCK ABSORBER
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
77%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1174 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