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 . 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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I, Figures 1-8, 22, and 23, claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9-13, in the reply filed April 16, 2026, has been acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Examiner did not explain why each group lacks unity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to pages 3-5, which set forth explanations directed to each species detailing how said species lack unity. Applicant further sets forth the Examiner does not provide any evidence or cite prior art demonstrating that not of the features of claim 1 are special common features. The Examiner notes an a priori assessment does not require such evidence. It is to be further noted, even if claim 1 sets forth a common special technical feature, claim 1 does not set forth a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), as set forth in the rejections below.
It is to be further noted examining multiple patentably distinct species together in the same application would impose a serious burden on the examiner, as such would require the search of multiple patentably distinct features that otherwise would not have to be searched for, applying appropriate prior art rejections and having to consider and respond to attorney arguments regarding such multiple patentably distinct features and rejections. Is it Applicant’s position that the specific features of the various species are not patentably distinct, and therefore obvious over one another? If so, then such should be clearly admitted on the record.
Finally, it should be noted that, as stated at page 5 of the election requirement, upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicants will be entitled to consideration of claims to the additional species that depend therefrom or otherwise include all of the limitations of that allowable generic claim. In other words, if patentability resides in the generic aspects of the inventions disclosed as opposed to the specific features of the respective species, then there will be rejoinder of those non-elected species and if patentability resides within the specifics of the elected species, then there will be no rejoinder of the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It is further noted the limitations set forth in claim 12 are not found in Species I, but are instead found in Species III (see Figure 10 and paragraphs [0137]-[0144]). The limitations set forth in claim 13 are also not found in Species I, but are instead found in Species V (see Figure 12 and paragraphs [0152]-[0161]).
Claims 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,592,460 (Kittel).
Regarding claim 1, Kittel discloses a damper device (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a first rotating body (13, 15) including at least a first plate (13) that rotates about a rotation axis (5), and a second plate (15) that is disposed to face the first plate and rotates integrally with the first plate about the rotation axis (via rivets 11);
a second rotating body (1, 7) that rotates relative to the first rotating body about the rotation axis (see column 2, line 67, through column 3, line 15);
an elastic mechanical unit (21, 23) that elastically connects the first rotating body and the second rotating body in a rotation direction (see column 3, lines 16-33);
a control plate (29) including a radially extending portion (30) that extends in a radial direction and is in contact with the elastic mechanical unit, and an axially extending portion (41) that extends in an axial direction and is at least partially accommodated in one of the first rotating body or the second rotating body, the control plate being disposed only in one of a first accommodation space between the first plate and the second rotating body or a second accommodation space between the second plate and the second rotating body in the axial direction (see Figure 1);
a first sliding portion (37) that is disposed between the first rotating body and the control plate (see Figure 1), slides with respect to at least one of the first rotating body or the control plate to generate a first sliding torque (see column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 34), has a first opening, and is rotatably supported by an outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body on an inner peripheral surface surrounding the first opening (the surface being supported by the second rotating body via its connection to the control plate as shown in Figure 1); and
a second sliding portion (35) that is disposed between the second rotating body and the control plate (see Figure 1), and slides with respect to at least one of the second rotating body or the control plate to generate a second sliding torque (see column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 34),
wherein, when the first rotating body and the second rotating body rotate relative to each other, the first sliding torque and the second sliding torque are generated (see column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 34).
Regarding claim 2, Kittel discloses a thrust member (39) including at least one of a first surface that slides with respect to the first rotating body (13, 15) or a second surface that slides with respect to the second rotating body (1, 7), in a space on a different side from a space in which the control plate (29) is disposed in the first accommodation space or the second accommodation space (see Figure 1 and column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kittel discloses a thrust member (39) including at least one of a first surface that slides with respect to the first rotating body (13, 15) or a second surface that slides with respect to the second rotating body (1, 7), in a space on a different side from a space in which the control plate is disposed in the first accommodation space or the second accommodation space (see Figure 1 and column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 34),
wherein one of the first sliding portion or the thrust member, whichever is located on a transmission side, is formed as a bush (see Figure 1, the thrust member being formed in an annular, bush, shape).
Regarding claim 9, Kittel discloses one of the first sliding torque or the second sliding torque is higher than the other one of the first sliding torque or the second sliding torque, and is generated when the second rotating body (1, 7) rotates relative to the first rotating body (13, 15) in a counterclockwise direction (see column 3, line 46, through column, 4 line 34).
Regarding claim 10, Kittel discloses the elastic mechanical unit (21, 23) includes a first elastic member (21), and a pair of sheet members (formed by the sides of the window 23) that sandwich and support the first elastic member from both sides (see Figure 2), and
the radially extending portion (30) is in contact with one of the first elastic member or the pair of sheet members (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kittel discloses the first sliding portion (37) includes a first sliding surface that slides with respect to the first rotating body (13, 15) or the radially extending portion (30), and a second elastic member (formed by a portion of the control plate 29) that biases the first sliding surface in a direction toward the first rotating body or the radially extending portion (see column 1, line 67, through column 2, line 2).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittel in view of US 8,696,474 (Saeki).
Kittel discloses the damper device according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose, at a position facing the control plate (29), the first sliding portion includes:
a first vertex portion in contact with the control plate;
a first inclined surface that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction away from a rotation axis of the first sliding portion, and is inclined in a direction away from the control plate; and
a second inclined surface that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction toward the rotation axis, and is inclined in the direction away from the control plate.
Saeki teaches, in Figure 14) at a position facing a control plate (24), a first sliding portion (23) includes:
a first vertex portion (23a) in contact with the control plate;
a first inclined surface (formed below 23a in Figure 14) that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction away from a rotation axis of the first sliding portion, and is inclined in a direction away from the control plate (see Figure 14); and
a second inclined surface (formed above 23a in Figure 14) that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction toward the rotation axis, and is inclined in the direction away from the control plate (see Figure 14).
Saeki teaches this structure, noted as a “support portion” aids in provided continuous contact between the control plate and first sliding portion (see column 2, lines 30-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper device of Kittel such that at a position facing the control plate, the first sliding portion includes: a first vertex portion in contact with the control plate; a first inclined surface that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction away from a rotation axis of the first sliding portion, and is inclined in a direction away from the control plate; and a second inclined surface that is connected to the first vertex portion, extends in a direction toward the rotation axis, and is inclined in the direction away from the control plate, as taught in Saeki, in order to provide continuous contact between the control plate and first sliding portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Kittel discloses the damper device according to claim 2, wherein the thrust member (39) has a second opening (formed radially inside 39 in Figure 1), and is rotatably supported by the outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body (1, 7) on an inner peripheral surface surrounding the second opening (see Figure 1).
However, Kittel fails disclose a gap formed between the inner peripheral surface surrounding one of the first opening (formed radially inside 35 in Figure 1) or the second opening located on a transmission side and the outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body is narrower than a gap formed between the inner peripheral surface surrounding the other one of the first opening or the second opening and the outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body. Kittel instead discloses the gaps between equal (see Figure 1).
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Kittel such that a gap formed between the inner peripheral surface surrounding one of the first opening or the second opening located on a transmission side and the outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body is narrower than a gap formed between the inner peripheral surface surrounding the other one of the first opening or the second opening and the outer peripheral surface of the second rotating body. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Kittel, as such a modification would cause an imbalance as a result of the torque at portions 35, 39 being imparted on the second rotating body (1, 7) at different radial positions.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the field of damper devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights