DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2024 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the first vibration damping unit comprises protective nets”. It is unclear how the vibration damping unit (9) per se “comprises” protective nets (3,4,5). As best understood, the cab assembly 1 or cab body 2 comprises protective nets, and the protective nets of the cab are connected to the damping unit, possibly indirectly, rather than the damping unit literally comprising the nets as a constituent part thereof.
Claim 13 recites, “the finite element mesh model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While a finite element mesh model was recited in claim 12, claim 13 does not depend from claim 12 and instead depends from claim 11.
Claims 7 and 9 recite a “frequency modulation ratio”. It is unclear what this ratio is, or how it is calculated. Paragraph 0076 says that the ratio is adjusted by adjusting the mass of the protective nets or adjusting the stiffness of the first elastic element, but it remains unclear how exactly the frequency modulation ratio is calculated. It is unclear if the frequency modulation ratio is the same or different from a damping ratio. For purposes of examination, the frequency modulation ratio will be interpreted as a standard damping ratio.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dou et al. (CN 209008704 U).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Dou discloses (figs. 1-3) A vibration damping device (4) for a cab (5, see abstract), and a cab comprising the vibration damping device, comprising a first vibration damping unit (fig. 3), wherein the first vibration damping unit comprises protective nets (31), a fixing plate (41), a base (44), a guide element (42), a first elastic element (421) and a limiting element (43);
the fixing plate is arranged opposite to the base (fig. 3 as shown) and connected to the protective nets (fig. 1, indirectly at least);
the guide element is located between the fixing plate and the base and opposite to the base (fig. 3 as shown), a movement space is formed between the guide element and the base (axial space at least), and the base is also configured to be connected to a cab body (indirectly at least);
the first elastic element is arranged in the movement space (fig. 3 as shown);
the limiting element has one end connected to the base and an other end working together with the fixing plate to limit a stroke of the first elastic element (fig. 3 as shown).
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.
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al. (CN 209008704 U) in view of Whiteford et al. (U.S. 5687948).
Regarding claim 7, Dou does not appear to disclose a frequency modulation ratio of the first vibration damping unit within the claimed range. In the same field of endeavor of vibration absorption, Whiteford teaches a vibration isolation system designed to have a particular resonant frequency and operating frequency such that the ratio (equivalent to the claimed “frequency modulation ratio”) is in the range of 0.90-0.99. Upon selecting a ratio of 0.90-0.95, one of ordinary skill in the art arrives at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the damper of Dou to have a frequency modulation ratio within the claimed range to optimize damping performance by both avoiding resonant frequencies (with a higher ratio such as 1.0), while also optimizing damping performance and prevent the damper from going through its entire range of motion without properly damping the associated mass (with a lower damping ratio such as 0.8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al. (CN 209008704 U) in view of Gong et al. (CN 114060455 A).
Regarding claim 8, Dou does not appear to disclose the details of the second vibration damping unit. In the same field of endeavor of vibration absorbing systems, Gong teaches (figs. 1-2) a second vibration damping unit (as shown), wherein the second vibration damping unit comprises a fixed frame (2), a combined mass block (6/7/8) and a second elastic element (3);
the combined mass block is installed in the fixed frame (as shown) and comprises a mass block holder (7 or 8) and a plurality of sub-mass blocks (6) connected to the mass block holder;
a number of the sub-mass blocks and a shape of the sub-mass blocks are determined by a frequency of vibrations to be eliminated (2-6 damping structures and 2-4 blocks per structure);
the second elastic element is arranged between the fixed frame and the combined mass block (fig. 1 as shown), has stiffness and damping properties (typical properties of an elastic element), and has two directional degrees of freedom (in both axial direction along its respective mounting axis, at least).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally provided the second vibration damping unit of Gong within the environment of Dou to improved the modularity of the damping system by making the damper more customizable by the number of mass blocks to provide depending on the load applied to the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou et al. (CN 209008704 U) in view of Gong et al. (CN 114060455 A) and further in view of Whiteford et al. (U.S. 5687948).
Regarding claim 9, Dou as modified does not appear to disclose a frequency modulation ratio of the second vibration damping unit within the claimed range. In the same field of endeavor of vibration absorption, Whiteford teaches a vibration isolation system designed to have a particular resonant frequency and operating frequency such that the ratio (equivalent to the claimed “frequency modulation ratio”) is in the range of 0.90-0.99. Upon selecting a ratio of 0.90-0.97, one of ordinary skill in the art arrives at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the damper of Dou as modified to have a frequency modulation ratio within the claimed range to optimize damping performance by both avoiding resonant frequencies (with a higher ratio such as 1.0), while also optimizing damping performance and prevent the damper from going through its entire range of motion without properly damping the associated mass (with a lower damping ratio such as 0.8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 11-16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various vibration damping systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 See 112(b) above. To the same extent that the vibration damper of the instant application “comprises” protective nets as a constituent part thereof, so too does the damper of Dou.
Prosecution Insights