Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/593,657

DAMPING RING ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Examiner
PALMER, ALEX ROBERT
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Caterpillar Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 40 resolved
+0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
54
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 40 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “configured” should be changed to “configuration” for grammatical clarity Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-9, 13-15, and 20 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 1 recites the limitation "the damping member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the sprocket drum” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 utilize the term “via”. Via is a generally narrative term and does not express specific structure. Claim 9 recites the limitation “a sprocket drum” in line 3. It is not clear if this is “the sprocket drum” referred to in claim 5. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the radially inner leg includes an ovular through hole configured to connect the radially outer leg to the plurality of recess…”. It is unclear how a through hole in the radially inner leg is used to connect the radially outer leg. It is assumed the radially inner leg is supposed to refer to the radially outer leg based on the specification and drawings. Claim 15 recites the limitation “an individual hole of the individual damping member” in line 2. The damping members are described as having recesses to which the radially outer legs are connected, not holes. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to an individual recess in the plurality of recesses described in claim 14 or if the ovular through hole of the radially outer leg is adjustable relative to a separate hole. Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the fastening of the radially inner legs and radially outer legs is repeated until an entire outer circumference of a surface portion of the drive sprocket is covered with a damping member”. It is unclear if the “damping member” is referring to the “plurality of damping members” from line 2, an individual damping member of the plurality of damping members, or a separate damping member from the plurality of damping members. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chagawa et al. US 4022072 A. Regarding claim 1, Chagawa discloses a damping ring assembly for a drive sprocket of a mobile industrial machine, the damping member comprising: a plurality of damping members 9a, 9b (henceforth simply referred to as “9”), each of the damping members 9 including an arc length (outer peripheral surface 91), a radial thickness, a plurality of recesses 10 located on an end surface and a retention groove 14 on an outer surface 91 of the damping members 9 (grooves 14 aid in retention by allowing the damping member to flex and move without breaking and falling off [col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 3]); and a plurality of brackets 6a, 6b (henceforth simply referred to as “6”), the plurality of brackets 6 each including a radially inner leg, a radially outer leg, and a joining central portion that connects the radially inner leg and the radially outer leg. (Figs. 1-4 including annotated Fig. 3) PNG media_image1.png 408 637 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Chagawa discloses the damping ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of brackets 6 are configured to be coupled to an end face of the drive sprocket (mounted at end face of mounting portion 5 of the drive sprocket) at the radially inner leg and to one of the plurality of recesses 10 in the end surface of an individual damping member at the radially outer leg. (Fig. 2 and 3) Regarding claim 7, Chagawa discloses the damping ring assembly of claim 1, wherein the retention groove 14 includes an annular groove width that is less than a width of an individual damping member 9. (groove width measured in the annular direction of the damping ring assembly is a small fraction of a width of an individual damping member) (Fig. 1 and 4) Regarding claim 20, Chagawa discloses a method of assembling a damping ring assembly to a drive sprocket, the damping ring assembly including a plurality of damping members 9a, 9b (henceforth simply referred to as “9”), each of the damping members including an arc length (length of arcing surface 91), a radial thickness, a plurality of recesses 10 located on an end surface, and a retention groove (grooves 14 aid in retention by allowing the damping member to flex and move without breaking and falling off [col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 3]) on an outer surface of the damping members 9; and a plurality of brackets 6a, 6b (henceforth simply referred to as “6”), the plurality of brackets 6 each including a radially inner leg, a radially outer leg, and a joining central portion that connects the radially inner leg and the radially outer leg, (see above annotated Fig. 3) the method comprising: fastening the radially inner leg of each of the plurality of brackets 6 to the drive sprocket; and fastening the radially outer leg of each of the plurality of brackets 6 to one of the plurality of recesses 10 located in the end surface of the damping members 9, wherein the fastening of the radially inner legs and radially outer legs is repeated until an entire outer circumference of a surface portion of the drive sprocket is covered with a damping member. (Figs. 1-4 including annotated Fig. 2 below) PNG media_image2.png 586 575 media_image2.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. Claims 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagawa et al. US 4022072 A. Regarding claim 9, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 1. Chagawa does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of recesses includes a threaded insert configured to receive a threaded fastener and to secure the individual damping member to a sprocket drum. However, it is well known to use threaded inserts in rubber or plastic (e.g. inserts that are molded in during manufacture or screwed in with oversize threads) as a way to use bolts or screws to fasten components together. Given that Chagawa does teach using a bolt in a threaded hole to secure the damping member to the bracket (and by extension the drive sprocket), It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded insert in place of the lower plate as a way to conserve materials with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given. Regarding claim 10, Chagawa teaches a drive sprocket damping assembly for a mobile industrial machine, the drive sprocket damping assembly comprising: a plurality of damping members 9a, 9b (henceforth simply referred to as “9”), each of the damping members 9 including an arc length (outer peripheral surface 91), a radial thickness, and a plurality of recesses 10 spaced along an end surface; and a plurality of brackets 6a, 6b (henceforth simply referred to as “6”) configured to be coupled to an end face of the sprocket drum (mounted at end face of mounting portion 5 of the drive sprocket) at a first bracket end (radially inner leg in Fig. 3) and to one of the threaded inserts (threaded portion of 10) in the end surface of the individual damping member 9 at a second bracket end (radially outer leg in Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of damping members 9 together form a circumferential shape when installed onto a surface of a drive sprocket. (Figs. 1-4 including above annotated Fig. 3) Chagawa does not teach wherein each of the plurality of recesses includes a threaded insert configured to receive a threaded fastener for securing individual damping member to a sprocket drum. . However, it is well known to use threaded inserts in rubber or plastic (e.g. inserts that are molded in during manufacture or screwed in with oversize external threads) as a way to use bolts or screws to fasten components together. Given that Chagawa does teach using a bolt in a threaded hole to secure the damping member to the bracket (and by extension the drive sprocket), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded insert in place of the lower plate as a way to conserve materials with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given. Regarding claim 11, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of brackets 6 include a radially inner leg, a radially outer leg, and a joining central portion that connects the radially inner leg and the radially outer leg. (Annotated Fig. 3 above) Regarding claim 13, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 11, wherein the radially inner leg includes a circular through hole 11 configured to connect the radially inner leg to the end face of the sprocket drum via a mechanical fastener 12. (Fig. 1 and 3) Regarding claim 14, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 11. Chagawa does not teach wherein the radially outer leg includes an ovular through hole configured to connect the radially outer leg to the plurality of recesses of the individual damping member via a threaded mechanical fastener. However, it is well known in the art to use an ovular hole or slot to allow adjustment or slight misalignment for threaded fasteners between parts so it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ovular hole with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given. Regarding claim 15, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 14. The limitation wherein the ovular through hole is configured to allow for the adjustment of the individual bracket relative to an individual hole of the individual damping member is intended use of the ovular hole. However, the hole from claim 14 would allow for the adjustment of the individual bracket. Regarding claim 16, Chagawa teaches the damping ring assembly of claim 10, further including a plurality of cutout portions 14 circumferentially spaced about an opposite end surface 91 of the damping member 9 with respect to the end surface having the plurality of recesses 10. (Figs. 1 and 4) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12 and 17-19 are 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST. 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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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. /AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600165
PROTECTIVE KIT FOR USE WHEN APPLYING A COATING TO A VEHICLE WHEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593947
ROBOT CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583253
WHEEL BEARING ASSEMBLY AND METHOD FOR DISASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12545339
TRACK SYSTEM FOR TRACTION OF A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539927
Snow Track For A Snowmobile
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
52%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+15.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 40 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