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 .
Election/Restrictions
In the response filed July 29, 2026, applicant elected the invention of Group I without traverse, and argued that claims 21-25 were directed to elected subject matter. Examiner disagrees that claims 21-25 are directed to elected subject matter, for the reasons specified below.
Claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a vehicle having a damper, classified in B60R 13/083.
II. Claims 21-25, drawn to a vehicle having a damper, classified in B60R 13/083.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, as neither claim 1 nor claim 6 mentions the laminated structure of the damper, which is featured in claim 21. Also, claim 21 does not mention the location of the damper being under the floor panel and rearwardly of the passenger seating area, which is featured in both claims 1 and 6. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
A search for the inventive feature of Invention I involves the specific location of the damper, i.e. below the floor and rearward of the seating area. A search for the inventive feature of invention II involves the structure of the damper, i.e. being laminated. Prior art applicable to one of the inventions would likely not be applicable to the other. Although Inventions I and II are classified within the same area, this area alone contains over 5,000 documents. Furthermore, a complete search involves the use of additional CPC symbols, such as B62D 21/03, 25/2009, 25/20, which contain over 30,000 documents.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title is not commensurate with the claimed invention because it does not mention a damper.
The following title is suggested: --Damper for Improving Noise, Vibration, and Harshness .
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 1-5 and 8 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.
With regard to claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “the mass defines recesses aligned with the first welds to reduce spacing between the first welds and the mass.” It is unclear how the recess 222 reduces the spacing between the first weld 122i and the mass 204. It seems that the recess, if anything, increases the spacing between the first weld 122i and the mass 204 (see applicant’s Fig. 4). At least one of the first welds 122i would overlap the mass 204, if the mass 204 were a rectangular shape free of the recesses 222. This limitation is not understood.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependence upon a rejected claim.
With regard to claim 8, the phrase “the damper includes a weight substantially within the range of approximately 1.5kg to approximately 2kg” is indefinite, due to the use of multiple relative terms within one claim limitation. The use of “substantially” and “approximately” together creates an extra layer of ambiguity, rendering the claim indefinite.
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) 6-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeSalvo et al. (US 2021/0062884, hereinafter DeSalvo).
With regard to claim 6, DeSalvo teaches a vehicle comprising:
a chassis defining a passenger seating area (within cab 114), wherein the chassis includes a floor panel (floor not specifically illustrated, but the operator cab 114 inherently includes a floor); and
a damper (170) connected to the chassis beneath the floor panel rearwardly of the passenger seating area (Rear view in Fig. 1 shows the damper 170 located at the very back of the cab area 114, which would be located behind the operator seat).
With regard to claim 7, DeSalvo teaches that the damper is generally aligned with a lateral centerline of the vehicle (see Central Plane “CP”).
With regard to claim 8, as best understood, DeSalvo teaches that the damper includes a weight substantially within a range of approximately 1.5kg to approximately 2kg (DeSalvo’s mass 178 is between 3 and 7 kilograms according to paragraph 0040. This can be considered “substantially” within a range of “approximately” 2kg. Alternatively, the damper 170 of DeSalvo includes multiple parts smaller than the mass 178, e.g. bolts 138, and panels 172 and 180, thus DeSalvo’s damper “includes” a weight “substantially” within a range of “approximately 1.5 kg”).
With regard to claim 9, the damper includes apertures (unlabeled in Fig. 8) extending through the damper and configured to receive locating members (e.g. bolts 182) to facilitate manufacture and installation of the damper.
With regard to claim 10, DeSalvo teaches a drain hole extending through the damper and configured to facilitate drainage and evaporation from the damper (any one of the apertures shown in Fig. 8 can be considered a drain hole, as it is capable of passing liquid therethrough, even with a bolt positioned therein).
With regard to claim 11, DeSalvo teaches that the damper includes:
a base panel (172); and
a mass (180+178) connected to the base panel.
With regard to claim 12, DeSalvo teaches that the base panel (172) and the mass (180+178) are configured as discrete components of the damper (see Fig. 8).
With regard to claim 15, the mass is laminated in construction (elements 180 and 178 can be fixed together with adhesive as described in Paragraph 0036, thus meeting the claim term “laminated”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
Claims 13 and 14 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 1, the closest prior art is that of DeSalvo, discussed above.
DeSalvo fails to teach or suggest at least the specific arrangement of the damper being positioned within a U-shaped cross-section of the cross-member.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
