DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the “stops” of Padios et al. move, and therefore do not encompass the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that the claims are drawn to only the “decoupling device”, and that claim 1 recites that “the damping arrangement oscillates relative to the stops” in line 11. The examiner points out that in any system with two relatively movable components, both components move relative to the other; therefore, the stops and damping arrangement both oscillate with reference to each other, encompassing the claim limitation. The examiner further notes that Padios et al. disclose that the system is a “heavy machine, such as large diesel marine engines or generators in wind turbines”. In such systems, it is common knowledge in the art that both the base/bracket and the component are known to oscillate and vibrate relative to each other.
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 6-9, 13, and 14 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fixing device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Padios et al. (US 20160265620).
In Re claim 1, Padios et al. disclose a decoupling device (fig. 3), comprising: a bracket (13); a damping arrangement (see rubber bushings 1, 2); a fixing arrangement (see 3 and 4) for fixing the decoupling device to an environment (10); an encasing element (see 14 and top and bottom bolts) comprising extending projections and stops (see threaded nut and bolt head structure) for limiting maximum oscillations, wherein the damping arrangement and the stops oscillate relative to each other, and wherein the stops are longitudinally offset.
In Re claim 2, see elongated damping arrangement (rubber bushings 1 and 2).
In Re claim 3, see two damping arrangements (rubber bushings 1, 2).
In Re claim 4, see two stops (see bolt head and threaded nut) which are spaced for each other on either side of the stop plate (21) in fig. 3.
In Re claim 5, see fixing bolts (3, 4) and decoupling device damping arrangement (rubber bushings 1 and 2).
In Re claims 6 and 13, see fixing bolts (3, 4) and circumferentially continuous casings (bushing cores 8, 9).
In Re claims 7, 9, 12, and 14, see two circumferentially extending stops (see bolt head and threaded nut). The two stops are understood to encompass the claimed “accumulation of stops” and “multiple stops”.
In Re claim 8, the damping rubber (1, 2) is located only at those specific regions.
In Re claims 10 and 11, see fixing bolts (3, 4).
In Re claim 15, Padios et al. disclose a decoupling device (fig. 3), comprising: a bracket (13); a damping arrangement (see rubber bushings 1, 2); a fastener (see 3 and 4 ) for fixing the decoupling device to an environment (10); a stepped collar bushing (see 6, 7, 11, 1, and 2); and at least two stops (see threaded nut and bolt head structure) for limiting maximum oscillations of the damping arrangement, wherein the damping arrangement and the stops oscillate relative to each other, and wherein the stops are longitudinally spaced.
In Re claim 16, see fixing bolts (3, 4).
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 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
