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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-219069 A to Akimoto in view of DE 10 2018 126 782 A1 to Dirnberger and in view of US 4,579,058 to Alker.
Re-claim 1, Akimoto teaches a shock absorber that connects a vibration member 2 as a vibration source and a covering member 100 for covering the vibration member to absorb vibration from the vibration member to the covering member, the shock absorber 10C comprising: a collar 40 includes a substantially tubular collar shaft 41 to be fastened to the vibration member with a fastener 50, annular flanges 42 protrude radially outward from two axial ends of the collar shaft; an annular fixing member 30 is fixed to the covering member 100; an annular shock absorbing member 21C is located between the collar and the fixing member with a radially outer peripheral portion of the shock absorbing member fixed to the fixing member 100 (see figure 13a), the shock absorbing member comprising a shock absorbing material (such as a mesh material); a spring 22 is located between at least one of the flanges on the collar and the shock absorbing member, and overlaid on the shock absorbing member, the shock absorbing member includes a radially inner peripheral portion loosely fitted on the collar shaft at least in a radial direction; the spring 22 has a spring constant smaller than a spring constant of the shock absorbing member 21C (the spring constant of the spring 22 is stated as being about 0.5 N/mm, whereas the spring constant of the shock absorbing member is stated as being about 12000 N/mm), the spring is truncated in a side view which has a larger diameter in a portion nearer the shock absorbing member 21C than in a portion nearer the at least one of the flanges (see at least figure 13a), and is spiral in a plan view; the shock absorbing member has a movement restrictor 212 in contact with the spring to restrict radial movement of the spring relative to the shock absorbing member, with the movement restrictor located between the radially inner peripheral portion and the radially outer peripheral portion, and adjacent to the spring on the shock absorbing member; the movement restrictor further including a movement restriction ridge protruding to outwardly more than the radially inner peripheral portion, and extending along and in contact with the radially outer portion that is radially outward in the spring spiral in a plan view. However, Akimoto fails to teach the radially inner peripheral portion of the shock absorbing member is thicker than the radially outer peripheral portion fixed to the fixing member, or the spring having a radially outer portion in contact with 40% to 55% of a circumference of the movement restrictor.
Dirnberger teaches a shock absorber having a shock absorbing member 9 with a radially inner peripheral portion thicker than a radially outer peripheral portion fixed to a fixing member 13 (the outer peripheral portion narrows, and as such is thinner than the inner peripheral portion, see figure 1a). As seen in the figure below, the radially inner peripheral portion (i.e. innermost portion) has a thickness at least twice that of the radially outer peripheral portion (i.e. the tip end portion). In addition, the radially outer peripheral portion does not appear to support any load directly, and as such would not experience any deformation under loads up to 5 N. The narrowed structural feature reduces sharp corner contact between the shock absorbing member and the fixing member 13, thus reducing the potential for undo wear and damage. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shock absorbing member of Akimoto with a thinner contracted outer peripheral portion as shown in Dirnberger, as this would have prevented sharp corner contact with the fixing member and thus reduce the potential for unnecessary wear and damage.
Akimoto fail to teach the spring having a radially outer portion in contact with 40% to 55% of a circumference of the movement restrictor.
Alker teaches a truncated spring, substantially similar to Akimoto, in which a base coil only extends a circumferential distance between 40% and 55% (see figure 1). Having used this spring in the shock absorber of Akimoto would have resulted in a radially outer portion of the spring in contact with 40% to 55% of a circumference of the movement restrictor, as the base coil of the spring only extends to between 40% to 55% of the circumference. The substitution of one truncated spring for another truncated spring is within the expertise of the artisan, and is seen as a mere choice of selection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply replaced the truncated spring of Akimoto with the truncated spring of Alker, thus yielding the spring having a radially outer portion in contact with 40% to 55% of a circumference of the movement restrictor.
PNG
media_image1.png
309
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 3, Akimoto teaches the restriction ridge being “convex” (“The movement restricting convex portion corresponds to a convex portion 212 described later”) which broadly implies an outwardly-curved cross section.
Re-claim 4, the spring substantially truncated in a side view has a height greater than a distance between the shock absorbing member 21C in contact with one of the flanges (i.e. topmost flange) on the two axial ends and another of the flanges. The spring as shown in the figures is compressed, as such the uncompressed height of the spring has a height greater than that as shown.
Re-claims 5, 8 and 9, Akimoto teaches the shock absorber attached to a covering member 100 covering a vibration member 2 (i.e. the engine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks regarding Dirnberger have been considered. However, it is noted that the recited inner peripheral portion and outer peripheral portion are not indicated as supporting a load. The phrase “portion” provides for a broad interpretation, and can simply define any portion of the recited areas, including an innermost portion and an outermost portion. As such the remarks regarding load capabilities and the ability to suppress deformation are more specific than the claim language would indicate.
Akimoto as modified by Dernberger would have retained the movement restrictor at the location shown in Akimoto. In fact, the inner peripheral portion of the Akimoto would retain its appearance, with only the outer peripheral portion being altered to the shape taught by Dernberger. This angled shape reduces sharp edges, thus reducing any cutting or other damage between the outer peripheral portion and the fixing member.
The remarks regarding the pivoting function and loading performance of the instant invention are more specific than the claim language. As such the rejection is maintained.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights