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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/24/2026.
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 7 and 9 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.
The amended claim language used in claim 7 is generally confusing and does not aid in further defining the scope. For example, “(portions) extend in a direction inclined with respect to a second direction and a third direction”. It is unclear what kind of increase in elevation or “incline” is that the Applicant is referring to, nor is there any guidance in the specification about this incline. This is also unclear in combination with the defined second and third directions. Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting these added limitations to mean that the respective portions/arms of the x-shape continue reaching away from the center point of the opening when viewed from the tip.
In claim 9, “the through hole has an end portion connected to the tip end” is confusing, as the through hole is negative space, so it brings into question how there can be an end portion unless it means the surface area at the edge. If so, it contradicts claim 1 and the figures, as the surface area at the tip edge opening is different then that of the base edge opening, i.e. not “constant”. Thus, for examination purposes the Examiner interprets this to mean the through hole continues from the tip edge through the first direction until the base edge. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwenger.
Regarding claim 7, Schwenger discloses a grommet comprising a tubular portion (Fig. 1B, 2), wherein the tubular portion extends along a first direction, and has a tip end (Fig. 1B, 6) and a base end (Fig. 1B, 8) located opposite to the tip end in the first direction, the tubular portion is provided with a through hole extending in the first direction and opening at the tip end and the base end, when the tubular portion is viewed from the tip end along the first direction, a first opening has a first portion, a second portion, a third portion and a fourth portion so as to be X-shaped (Para. 0055 – cross-shaped), the first opening edge being an opening edge of the through hole at the tip end (Fig. 1D, 10)
Regarding the added limitation of “when viewed from the tip end along the first direction, each of the first portion, the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion extend in a direction inclined with respect to a second direction and a third direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction”, this is being interpreted as stated supra in the 112(b) rejection due to clarity issues. Inherently, a cross-shape has four portions that extend away from the center to form an X (or cross) shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pezzato in view of US 5092016 (hereinafter “Soong”).
Regarding claim 1, Pezzato discloses a grommet comprising a tubular portion (Fig. 21, 131), wherein
the tubular portion extends along a first direction, and has a tip end and a base end located opposite to the tip end in the first direction,
the tubular portion is provided with a through hole extending in the first direction and opening at the tip end and the base end (See annotated Fig. 21 below), and
when the tubular portion is viewed from the tip end along the first direction,
a first opening edge has a first portion, the first opening edge being an opening edge of the through hole at the tip end (See annotated Fig. 21 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
350
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment of Pezzato, it does not disclose the first portion has a first end and a second end, the first end being an intersection point of a first line and the first opening edge, the first line passing through a center of the through hole and along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the second end being an intersection point of a second line and the first opening edge, the second line passing through the center and along a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction,
there are a first position and a second position on the first portion, the second position being further away from the first end than the first position in the third direction, and
a slope of a tangent of the first portion increases from the first end toward the first position, and decreases from the first position toward the second position.
However, in another configuration, Pezzato discloses string holes of various shapes (Fig. 16) that help to dampen string vibration (Para. 0065). This includes Fig. 16, bottom right hole which satisfies the limitations as claimed for first and second positions with relative tangent lines to the first and second ends (See annotated Fig. 16 below). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate different hole shapes, such as those seen in Fig. 16 to increase dampening effects while further protecting the strings in grommets.
PNG
media_image2.png
112
169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pezzato does not disclose wherein a maximum value of a distance between the center and the second opening edge is smaller than or equal to a minimum value of a distance between the center and the first opening edge, the second opening edge being an opening edge of the through hole at the base end. Soong discloses a grommet pad that is axisymmetric with a flared end (thus the value from the center to the edge opening is the same all the way around) to provide support and protect the grommet and frame from cutting into each other (Fig. 2B, Col. 1, lines 23-30). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the grommet of Pezzato with the flared configuration as taught by Soong to prevent the frame and grommet from cutting into each other and reduce wear on the equipment.
Claims 2-5 are further rejected by modified Pezzato as set forth in paragraphs 6-9 of the previous office action (04/24/2026).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pezzato further discloses when viewed from the tip end along the first direction, a second opening edge is circular, the second opening edge being an opening edge of the through hole at the base end (Soong: Fig. 2B). Reasons for combination of references are as stated supra in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Pezzato further discloses wherein the through hole has an end portion connected to the tip end, and an opening area of the end portion is constant along the first direction (Fig. 21). As best understood, Pezzato shows a tip end at its distal end of the through hole. This is comparable to applicant’s through hole. It is unclear as to how there is any connected portion as the tip end is merely at the distal end of the through hole for both applicant’s invention and as shown with Pezzato (annotated fig 21 above). Since Pezzato shows same tip end construction as applicant, the examiner takes the position that the through hole has an end portion connected to the tip end as claimed. Claim is being interpreted as stated supra in the 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues that cross-shaped is not synonymous with X-shaped. A common definition of cross is as follows: “a figure or mark formed by two intersecting lines crossing at their midpoints” (merriam-webster.com). X-shaped is also a broad term, as it means to be shaped like the letter “X”, which is made up of two lines intersecting at the middle. Therefore, Schwenger’s cross-shaped design anticipates claim 7.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Pezzato’s grommet in combination with the flared opening as taught by Soong renders the claim obvious to a POSITA. See prior art rejection supra for more.
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 SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights