CTNF 18/606,883 CTNF 101441 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Foreign Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first component” and “second component”, as recited in at least Claim 1 , must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1 and 12-13 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. Regarding Claim 1, the limitations “first component” and “second component” are recited as part of functional language in both the preamble and body of Claim 1. As the structure “first component” and “second component” are only ever referred to within the context of functional language it’s unclear if the structures were intended to be claimed as part of the structural scope of claim 1 or merely limit the structure of the respective damper components. The language of Claim 1 “which is particular fixedly connected or connectable to the” first and second “component” currently creates a broad structural relationship between the “damper component” and their respective “component” placing the structure of a “first component” and a “second component” in the scope of Claim 1. This results in the drawing objection above as a “first component” and a “second component” are not pictured in any of the figures. It should be noted that there is no disclosure of “first component” or “Second component” in the specification outside of the title. There is disclosure of “first part” and “second part”. It should be noted all Claims dependent on Claim 1 are also rejected under this rejection. Regarding Claims 12 and 13 the limitations “the base body”, “at least one blocking body”, and “a second toothing” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the base body” and “at least one blocking body” as these structures are first established in Claims 4 and 5, respectively, which are not in the dependency line of Claims 12 and 13. For purposes of examination Claims 12 and 13 will be interpreted as importing all the structural limitations of “the base body” and the “at least one blocking body” as initially recited in Claim 4 and Claim 5. Additionally, the limitation “a second toothing”, as recited in Claim 12, implies the existence of a first toothing, but “a first toothing” is established in Claim 5 which, again, is not in the dependency line of Claim 12. Similarly, Claim 13 recites the limitation “the second toothing” which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this as “a second toothing” is first established in Claim 12, which is not in the line of dependency of Claim 13. Claim 13 also suffers from the same deficiency, regarding the implication of “a first toothing”, of Claim 12. For purposes of examination Claims 12 and 13 will be interpreted as incorporating all the structure limitations of “a first toothing” as established in Claim 5 and Claim 13 will be interpreted to incorporate all the structural limitations of “a second toothing” from Claim 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Schiele (DE 102011113617 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Schiele discloses a rotary damper for reducing and in particular braking a rotational or pivotal movement of a second component rotatable relative to a first component, wherein the rotary damper comprises the following: a first damper component (1), which is in particular fixedly connected or connectable to the first component (11, see [0025]); a second damper component (15), which is in particular fixedly connected or connectable to the second component (see [0026]); a damping mechanism (3), wherein the first damper component (1) is rotatable relative to the second damper component (15), wherein, in a first direction of rotation, a rotational movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) is or can be braked due to the damping mechanism (3), and wherein the rotary damper further comprises a coupling mechanism (7), which is configured so as to operatively connect the second damper component (15) to the damping mechanism (3) upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation, and, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in a second direction of rotation opposite the first direction of rotation, to release and/or prevent an operative connection between the second damper component (15) and the damping mechanism (3) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Regarding Claim 10, Schiele discloses wherein the damping mechanism (3) comprises a fin or rib structure made of an elastically deformable plastic material ( see [0027], Fig. 1, Fig. 2), wherein, at least upon movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation, the fin or rib structure of the damping mechanism (3) cooperates with the first damper component (1) in such a way that at least a portion of kinetic energy of the first damper component (1) is converted into heat and/or deformation work by cooperating with the fin or rib structure of the damping mechanism (3) ( see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0031], [0032]). Regarding Claim 15, wherein the first damper component (1) is operatively connected to the damping mechanism (3) such that, at least upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation, the degree of freedom of a movement, in particular a rotational movement, of the first damper component (1) relative to the damping mechanism (3) is given, wherein such a relative movement is braked or reduced with the aid of the damping mechanism (3) by the conversion of kinetic energy into deformation work and/or heat ( see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0031], [0032]). Regarding Claim 16, wherein the first damper component (1) is configured as an in particular cylindrical hollow body, wherein the damping mechanism (3) is in particular partially or regionally received in the in particular cylindrical hollow body of the first damper component (1), and wherein the second damper component (15) is arranged at an end region of the first damper component (1) configured as an in particular cylindrical hollow body, wherein the second damper component (15) is connected, and in particular operatively connected, via the coupling mechanism (7) to the first damper component (1) and/or to the damping mechanism (3) ( see Fig. 1, Fig. 2) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiele (DE 102011113617 A1) in view of Araki (US 20130068581 A1) . Regarding Claim 2, Schiele discloses wherein the coupling mechanism (7) is transferable between an engaged position and a freewheeling position, wherein, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation, the ratchet is in the engaged position, in which the mechanism is operatively connected in a form-fit manner to the second damper component (15), and wherein, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the second direction of rotation, the mechanism is in the freewheeling position, in which a form-fit operative connection between the mechanism and the second damper component (15) is released or prevented (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Schiele does not explicitly disclose wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a rachet. Araki teaches wherein a one-way coupling mechanism comprises a rachet ( see Fig. 7), which is transferable between an engaged position and a freewheeling position, wherein, upon a movement of a first component (10) relative to a second component (20) in the first direction of rotation, the ratchet is in the engaged position, in which the ratchet is operatively connected in a form-fit manner to the second component (20), and wherein, upon a movement of the first component (10) relative to the second component (20) in the second direction of rotation, the ratchet is in the freewheeling position, in which a form-fit operative connection between the ratchet and the second component is released or prevented ( see Fig. 7, [0003]). It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of a rachet coupling mechanism of Araki with the rotary damper of Schiele in order to increase the structural stability and the coupling mechanisms longevity without increasing complexity or cost ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; [0013-0015]). Regarding Claim 3, Schiele modified by Araki teaches wherein the ratchet ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) is configured to automatically assume the engaged position when the first damper component (1) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) is moved relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation and automatically assume the freewheeling position when the first damper component (1) is moved relative to the second damper component (15) in the second direction of rotation ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2; see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; [0003]). Regarding Claim 4, Schiele modified by Araki teaches wherein the coupling mechanism comprises at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7), which is mounted floatingly in such a way that the blocking body (72) is transferable between an engaged position and a freewheeling position, wherein, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation, the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7), is in the engaged position, in which the at least one blocking body (72) is operatively connected in a form-fit manner to the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and wherein, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the second direction of rotation, the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7), is in the freewheeling position, in which a form-fit operative connection between the at least one blocking body (72) and the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), is released or prevented, wherein the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7), is preferably configured so as to automatically assume the engaged position when the first damper component (1) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), is moved relative to the second damper component (15) in the first direction of rotation and automatically assume the freewheeling position when the first damper component (1) is moved relative to the second damper component (15) in the second direction of rotation. Regarding Claim 5, Schiele modified by Araki teaches wherein the at least one blocking body (72) comprises a preferably cylindrical or at least substantially cylindrical base body (72), wherein the base body (72) is provided with at least one first toothing on its lateral surface ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7), which toothing is configured so to engage in a form-fit manner or at least substantially in a form-fit manner with an engagement structure (14) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), in the engaged position of the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7). Regarding Claim 6, Schiele modified by Araki teaches wherein the engagement structure (14) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), comprises at least one toothing (14 ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) which is at least substantially complementary to the at least one first toothing of the blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7). Regarding Claim 9, Schiele modified by Araki teaches wherein the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) is mounted floatingly, in particular with respect to the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), and the at least one first toothing of the blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) and the engagement structure (14) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), are configured such that, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the second rotational direction, the at least one first toothing of the blocking body (72) is or can be slid over the engagement structure (14) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), while, upon a movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the second damper component (15) in the first rotational direction, the at least one first toothing of the blocking body (72) strikes against a toothing (14) of the engagement structure (14) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the second damper component (15) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2), establishes a form fit therewith, and interrupts a rotation of the second damper component (15) relative to the damping mechanism (3) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiele (DE 102011113617 A1) modified by Araki (US 20130068581 A1) in Claim 6 above, further in view of Roach (US 6148979 A) . Regarding Claim 7, Schiele modified by Araki teaches the rotary damper according to claim 6, wherein the at least one first toothing of the base body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) of the at least one blocking body (72) comprises at least a first tooth and a plurality of first teeth in particular distributed in an equidistant manner over a circumference of the lateral surface of the base body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7). Schiele modified by Araki does not teach wherein the at least one first tooth of the at least one first toothing of the base body of the blocking body comprises a steep flank and a flat flank. Roach teaches a base body (214) wherein the at least one first tooth of the at least one first toothing of the base body of the blocking body comprises a steep flank and a flat flank ( see Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of the tooth shape of Roach with the rotary damper of Schiele modified by Araki in order to reduce wear on the base body toothing ( see US 6148979 A [Roach]; 2: 5-21) Regarding Claim 8, Schiele modified by Araki and Roach teaches wherein the at least one first toothing of the base body (72) of the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) is operatively connected to the damping mechanism (3) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) at least in the engaged position of the at least one blocking body (72) ( see US 20130068581 A1 [Araki]; Fig. 7) in such a way that a rotational movement of the second damper component (15) relative to the damping mechanism (3) ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) is interrupted or prevented, while a rotational movement of the first damper component (1) relative to the damping mechanism (3) is still possible, in particular with simultaneous conversion of kinetic energy of the first damper component (1), in particular into friction work or heat ( see DE 102011113617 A1 [Schiele]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiele (DE 102011113617 A1) in view of Prawda (US 20180037249 A1) . Regarding Claim 17, Schiele discloses the rotary damper according to Claim 16. Schiele does not disclose wherein the damping mechanism is received in the in particular cylindrical hollow body of the first damper component coaxially or concentrically. Prawda teaches a dry frictional damping mechanism which is received in a cylindrical hollow body coaxially or concentrically ( see Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, [0026]). It would have been obvious to combine the damping mechanism of Prawda with the rotary damper of Schiele in order to apply braking forces over the whole of the damping surface and evenly cooperate with the different damping components ( see US 20180037249 A1 [Prawda]; [0056-0060]) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 11-13 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. Regarding Claim 11, Neither Schiele nor Prawda teach wherein “wherein the bearing structure (13) for the fin or rib structure (12) comprises an engagement structure (14) via which the bearing structure (13) of the damping mechanism (4) and the fin or rib structure (12) supported by the bearing structure (13) are operatively connected via the coupling mechanism (5) to the second damper component (3).” Claim 12 and 13 are potentially allowable base on their dependencies on a potentially allowable Claim 11. Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gant et. al. (US 11078984 B1), Tu et. al. (CN 114075902 A), Cultraro (US 10591002 B2) . Gant discloses a rotary damper system containing a one-way clutch operationally connection a rotating body to the damping mechanism. Tu discloses a rotary damping system containing a one-way clutch that drives a concentric damping mechanism to damp the rotation. Cultraro teaches a rotary damping system containing a ratcheting one-way clutch that drives a fluid dampening mechanism. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00. 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. /S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 2 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 3 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 4 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 5 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 6 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 7 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 8 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 9 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 10 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 11 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 12 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/606,883 Page 13 Art Unit: 3616
Prosecution Insights