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 § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chludek, U.S. 6,296,096 in view of Mittermaier et al., U.S. 10,780,989 commensurate with the non-final rejection dated 7 May 2026 and is not replicated in this final rejection, notwithstanding the salient addition to claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the base reference does not disclose a change in dampening because the reference discloses a change in spring stiffness.
The reference discloses in the cited passage that the flange 151 rotates relative to the flange 152 under the influence of torsion of the torsion bar 155 and, possibly, relative to the tube spring 183, the housing 174 of the viscous coupling 200 rotates simultaneously relative to the hub 171, so that any rotational vibrations of the torsion bar 155 and, possibly, of the tube spring 183 are dampened.
The reference is inclusive and the open-ended claims do not preclude additional elements.
Applicants argue an increase in spring rate is not a “second degree” of dampening, where as noted above all prior art elements of the coupling are included.
Applicant’s arguments directed to the base reference having a “sole dampening structure” is baseless (as noted above) and the rejection sets forth the degrees of relative rotation of the dampening device.
Applicants argue against the conflation of stiffness and dampening of the base reference torsion and tube spring in the comparison.
Without exasperates nor asperities the claims do not preclude the comparison, and the arguments are mere allegations, notwithstanding the open-ended claims nor the teaching reference indicative of the functional application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH L THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7037. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays; 9:00-5:00, est.
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.
17 August 2026
/KENNETH L THOMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights