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 .
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 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.
Claim 1 recites that the through holes have radially inclined decreasing surfaces, while claim 7 recites that the through holes have a constant radial surfaces distance. With reference to figs. 3 and 4 of applicant’s drawings, the limitations of claim 7 appear to be incorrect and opposing those of claim 1, from which it depends.
Claim 1 recites that the through holes have radially inclined decreasing surfaces, while claim 8 recites that the inner portion of the main body rubber elastic body has a constant radial surfaces distance. With reference to figs. 3 and 4 of applicant’s drawings, the limitations of claim 8 appear to be incorrect and opposing those of claim 1, from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishinaka (JP 2006153265).
In Re claim 1, Nishinaka discloses a tubular vibration damping device (10), comprising: an inner shaft member (12) provided with a large-diameter part (see central enlarged portion); an outer tube member (14); and a main rubber elastic body (20) connected between the inner shaft member and the outer tube member, wherein the main rubber elastic body includes a through hole (18) in an axial direction and having an inclined surface (18) that expands such that a circumferentially opposing surface distance gradually increases toward an axial opening part of the though hole (see figs. 3 and 4).
In Re claim 2, the through hole has a minimum width at an axial central portion (see figs. 3 and 4).
In Re claims 3 and 4, the diameter of the through hole is smaller than the outer diameter of the inner shaft member.
In Re claim 5, see fig. 2 of Nishinaka, which appears to have a similar shape as applicant’s invention.
In Re claim 6, see two through holes (18) in fig. 2.
In Re claims 7 and 8, as best understood, the through hole of Nishinaka is shaped in the same manner as applicant’s invention, and meets the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights