DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Drawings
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 ‘sacrificial layer’, claim 7, the ‘compositional discontinuity’ claim 8, the ‘void’ as claimed in claim 9, and the ‘non-uniform thickness’ layer, as claimed in claim 11 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
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
ClaimS 7-9,26,27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7 it is unclear where the ‘sacrificial layer’ is shown in the drawings and which layer constitutes this layer.
Claim 8 it is unclear where the ‘compositional discontinuity’ is shown in the drawings. What exactly this element.
Claim 9 it is unclear which layer has the void.
Claims 26 and 27 contain the same problems discussed above.
Claims 5,6,8,12,13,20,26 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 5 it is unclear what the difference is between the ‘tension force’ claimed here and the ‘load force’ claimed on line 5 of claim 1.
Claims 8 and 26 it is unclear what a ‘compositional discontinuity’ is. What exactly are the metes and bounds of this limitation?
Claim 12 the limitation of “the preload force” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 what is the difference between the ‘winding tension’ claimed here and the ‘load force’ claimed on line 2 of claim 16?
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,7-10,14-16,24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by the “Launch Vibration of Pe-Tensioned Coiled Structures Publication ( Published Online:29 Dec 2021) to Wen and Pelligrino-- (Wen et al. Publication).
Regarding claims 1-4,24-26 the Wen et al. Publication shows applicants prior dynamic vibration damping device with which they are well familiar as best seen in figures 1-3,6 and 8-11. As described throughout this document these limitations are met.
Regarding claim 7, subject to the 112 rejection and drawing objections above (and as best understood), one of the layers in the Wen et al. Publication could be considered to be a ‘sacrificial layer’ that is capable of abrasion to some degree, as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, at least one of the layers is capable of having a ‘compositional discontinuity’ simply due to manufacturing flaws (no matter how minor) in the layers of the device. Also Wen et al. states on page 11 that the inter layer friction properties can be adjusted.
Regarding claims 9,10,27,28 as broadly claimed, at least one of the layers is capable of having a ‘void’ (no matter how small/microscopic) simply due to minor manufacturing flaws in the layers of the device. Also at least some of the coils could be loosely wound, (thereby creating small gaps or ‘voids’ between adjacent layers and that are ‘non-contiguous’) as described in the document.
Regarding claims 14-16 as best understood from a reading of the document these limitations are considered to be/ capable of being met, as broadly claimed.
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(s) 5,6,12,13,19-21,23,30,31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wen et al. Publication in view of JP 6401761 B2.
Regarding claims 5,6,12,13,19,31 subject to the 112 rejection above (and as best understood), Wen et al. lacks stating that the preload/tension force is configured based upon the resonant frequency of the damper device.
However it is well known that adding a preload force based upon the devices resonant frequency is often a design strategy to change the stiffness of the damper to alter the natural frequency of the entire system thereby improving vibration control of the main structure.
This idea is taught by JP ‘761. See this document in its entirety.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added a preload force to the damper of Wen et al. for the reason above.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the ‘winding tension’ is considered to be the ‘pre-load’ force described with the modification to Wen et al., above.
Regarding claim 21, as explained above, Wen et al., as modified by JP ‘761, meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23 since this device is nearly identical to applicants these limitations are capable of being met, as broadly claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11,17,18,22,29 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 CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
7/12/26
Prosecution Insights