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 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 1-20 are 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.
Re: claim 1. The phrase “a tube-type torsional damper” is indefinite. The term “type” fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim.
The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 3062072 to Hirst.
Re: claim 1. Hirst shows in figure 1 a vibration absorber apparatus for a mechanical system comprising a rotating machine part, the vibration absorber apparatus comprising: a tube-type torsional damper that is attached, by a hub 10, to the rotating machine part for rotation with the machine part about an axis of rotation, the tube- type torsional damper having a housing 11 that is spaced apart radially from the axis, that extends circumferentially around the axis and that has a longitudinal extension having a dimension L in a longitudinal direction parallel to the axis; at least one elastic member 12a-12d connecting the hub 10 to the housing 11 for tuning the tube-type torsional damper; wherein the at least one elastic member 12a-12d has an effective torsional stiffness kτ given by kτ = (w₁₁)²J, where J is an overall polar moment of inertia of the tube-type torsional damper and w₁₁ is a resonant frequency of the mechanical system as the recited torsional stiffness equation is a well-known equation for solving torsional stiffness based on Newton’s 2nd law.
Re: claims 14 and 15. Hirst shows in figure 1 wherein the at least one elastic member comprises a plurality of spokes 12a-12d that are angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis and that extend between and are connected to the hub 10 and the housing 11.
Re: claim 16. Hirst shows in figure 1 wherein the spokes 12a-12d are removably connected to the hub 10 and to the housing 11 via elements 18.
Re: claim 19. In an alternate interpretation Hirst shows in figure 1 wherein the at least one elastic member comprises a second plurality of spokes 12b, 12d (and the plurality of spokes are 12a, 12c) that are angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis and that extend between and are connected to the hub 10 and the housing 11.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 3462136 to Rumsey.
Re: claim 1. Rumsey shows in figure 5 a vibration absorber apparatus for a mechanical system comprising a rotating machine part, the vibration absorber apparatus comprising: a tube-type torsional damper that is attached, by a hub 68, to the rotating machine part for rotation with the machine part about an axis of rotation, the tube- type torsional damper having a housing 81 that is spaced apart radially from the axis, that extends circumferentially around the axis and that has a longitudinal extension having a dimension L in a longitudinal direction parallel to the axis; at least one elastic member 82 as described col. 5 line 62 connecting the hub 68 to the housing 81 for tuning the tube-type torsional damper; wherein the at least one elastic member 82 has an effective torsional stiffness kτ given by kτ = (w₁₁)²J, where J is an overall polar moment of inertia of the tube-type torsional damper and w₁₁ is a resonant frequency of the mechanical system as the recited torsional stiffness equation is a well-known equation for solving torsional stiffness based on Newton’s 2nd law.
Re: claim 2. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the at least one elastic member 82 comprises a disc shaped member that extends around the axis and is disposed between and connected to the hub 68 and the housing 81.
Re: claim 3. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define a plurality of cutouts 85, the plurality of cutouts having the same shape, equally sized, equally radially spaced apart from the axis and equally angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis as shown.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claims 4-6. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define a second plurality of cutouts 88, the second plurality of cutouts having the same shape, equally sized, equally radially spaced apart from the axis and equally angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis as shown.
Re: claim 8. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the radial spacing from the axis of the second plurality of cutouts 88 is different from the radial spacing from the axis of the plurality of cutouts 85.
Re: claims 13 and 18. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define one or more cutouts 85 with a spiral shape about the axis as shown.
Re: claims 14 and 15. Rumsey shows in figure 5 wherein the at least one elastic member comprises a plurality of spokes 82 that are angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis and that extend between and are connected to the hub 68 and the housing 81.
Re: claim 1 (alternate interpretation). Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 a vibration absorber apparatus for a mechanical system comprising a rotating machine part, the vibration absorber apparatus comprising: a tube-type torsional damper that is attached, by a hub shown in the area of 23, to the rotating machine part for rotation with the machine part about an axis of rotation, the tube- type torsional damper having a housing shown in the area of 28 that is spaced apart radially from the axis, that extends circumferentially around the axis and that has a longitudinal extension having a dimension L in a longitudinal direction parallel to the axis; at least one elastic member 32 connecting the hub 23 to the housing 28 for tuning the tube-type torsional damper; wherein the at least one elastic member 32 has an effective torsional stiffness kτ given by kτ = (w₁₁)²J, where J is an overall polar moment of inertia of the tube-type torsional damper and w₁₁ is a resonant frequency of the mechanical system as the recited torsional stiffness equation is a well-known equation for solving torsional stiffness based on Newton’s 2nd law.
Re: claim 2. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the at least one elastic member 32 comprises a disc shaped member that extends around the axis and is disposed between and connected to the hub 23 and the housing 28.
[AltContent: textbox (Second plurality of spokes)]Re: claim 3. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define a plurality of cutouts 33, the plurality of cutouts, as labeled, having the same shape, equally sized, equally radially spaced apart from the axis and equally angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis as shown.
[AltContent: textbox (Plurality of spokes)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second plurality of cutouts)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of cutouts)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
487
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 4. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define a second plurality of cutouts, as labeled, the second plurality of cutouts having the same shape, equally sized, equally radially spaced apart from the axis and equally angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis as shown.
Re: claims 9 and 12. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the at least one elastic member 32 comprises a plurality of disc-shaped members 32 best shown in figure 1 each disc shaped member 32 extending around the axis and disposed between and connected to the hub 23 and the housing 28 as shown in figure 2.
Re: claims 10 and 20. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the plurality of disc shaped members 32 are spaced apart from one another in the longitudinal direction i.e. selecting two elements 32 with the same crosshatching shown in figure 1 that are not directly adjacent.
Re: claim 11. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein a spacing in the longitudinal direction between an adjacent pair of the plurality of disc shaped members 32 i.e. the two with the same crosshatching is less than the dimension L of the housing 15 (using an alternate interpretation) in the longitudinal direction as shown in figure 1.
Re: claims 13 and 18. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the disc shaped member is shaped to define one or more cutouts 33 with a spiral shape about the axis as shown.
Re: claims 14 and 15. Rumsey shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the at least one elastic member comprises a plurality of spokes, as labeled, that are angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis and that extend between and are connected to the hub 23 and the housing 28.
Re: claim 19. Rumsey shows in figure 1 and 2 wherein the at least one elastic member comprises a second plurality of spokes, as labeled, that are angularly spaced apart from one another about the axis and that extend between and are connected to the hub 23 and the housing 28.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsey in view of Hirst.
Rumsey is silent with regard to the angular spacing between the second plurality of cutouts being different than the angular spacing between the plurality of cutouts.
Hirst teaches in figure 3 the use of the angular spacing between a second plurality of cutouts, as labeled, being different than the angular spacing between a plurality of cutouts, as labeled.
[AltContent: textbox (Plurality of cutouts)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Second plurality of cutouts)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
317
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the angular spacing between the second plurality of cutouts of Rumsey to have been different from that of the plurality of cutouts, in view of the teachings of Hirst, in order to provide a means of tuning how the torsional damper behaves e.g. to create a nonlinear stiffness response.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsey in view of WO-2019223990 (WO’990).
Rumsey is silent with regard to the spokes having dimensions in the longitudinal direction that are at least five times their arcuate dimension about the axis.
WO’990 teaches in figures 2 and 3 the use of an apparatus including spokes having a dimension in the longitudinal direction shown in figure 2 that is a multiple times their arcuate dimension shown in figure 3. Also see In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the spokes of Rumsey, to have included a dimension in the longitudinal direction to have been at least 5 times the arcuate dimension about the axis, in view of the teachings of WO’990 and In re Aller, in order to provide a means of increasing the torsional stiffness of the stoke to help the spoke resist twisting.
Examiner notes that Applicant failed to provide an explanation of criticality for the particular recited range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent applications and foreign references: US 2002/0101013 to Kato, US 2013/0075209 to Semura et al., JP-6573037, and CN-107606054 teach the use of similar rotational dampers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
March 19, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616