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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations “(hereinafter, referred to as an “insertion portion”)” and “(hereinafter, referred to as a “containing portion”)” are recited. As these limitations are written inside parathesis it is unclear if these are intended to be considered claimed limitations of Claim 1. If they are intended to be claimed limitations, it is unclear what the separately recited “portion” structure is intended to refer to. If they are not intended to be claimed limitations there are later antecedent basis issues with recitation of “containing portion” and “insertion portion” in dependent claims. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted to read “wherein the space includes an insertion portion and a containing portion”, getting rid of the parenthesis and establishing both “a containing portion” and “an insertion portion”. Claims 2-7 are rejected as depending on a rejected base Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2-3 the limitation “containing portions” is recited. As only “a containing portion” is established in the base Claim 1, it is unclear how many containing portions are intended to be claimed. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second containing portion as only a single containing portion is established in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to have a “further comprising a second containing portion” preceding “wherein the containing portions…”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et. al. (JP 2001098840 A) in view of Ogawa (WO 2009081894 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seki discloses a rotary damper comprising: a cylinder (21) that includes a partition wall (21d); a rotor (3) that includes a shaft part (31) facing the partition wall (21d); a groove (91) that is formed in the partition wall (21d); and an body (92) that is installed in the groove (91) to seal a gap between the partition wall (91d) and the shaft part (31), wherein the groove (91d) has a space in which the body (92) can be moved in a circumferential direction, and wherein the space includes a portion (hereinafter, referred to as an “insertion portion”) (B) (see Annotated Fig. 3 below) into which the body can be inserted without being compressed, and a portion (hereinafter, referred to as a “containing portion”) (A) that contains the body compressed by a face of the groove facing the shaft part (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 below).
Seki does not explicitly disclose wherein the body is an elastic body.
Ogawa teaches a rotary damper comprising a groove (4i) and an elastic body (11) installed within the groove (4i) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 22, pgh. 0031).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Ogawa with the rotary damper of Seki in order to maintain the body in a press contact sealing position without outside force, reducing the leakage of fluid (see WO 2009081894 A1 [Ogawa]; [0005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 2, Seki modified by Ogawa teaches wherein the containing portions (A) are disposed on both sides of the insertion portion (B) (see JP 2001098840 A [Seki]; Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Seki modified by Ogawa teaches wherein the containing portions (A) are disposed on both sides of the insertion portion (B), and wherein the face of the groove facing the shaft part is a curved surface (see JP 2001098840 A [Seki]; Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 above. The surface is curved at least in part, as shown).
Regarding Claim 4, Seki modified by Ogawa teaches wherein the containing portion (X) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (Y) (see WO 2009081894 A1 [Ogawa]; Fig. 22, Annotated Fig. 22 below, The containing portion corresponds to the portion of the groove when the body is at the top of the groove, as shown).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 22
Regarding Claim 5, Seki modified by Ogawa teaches wherein the containing portion (X) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (Y), and wherein the face of the groove facing the shaft part is an inclined surface (see WO 2009081894 A1 [Ogawa]; Fig. 22, Annotated Fig. 22 above).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et. al. (JP 2001098840 A) as modified by Ogawa (WO 2009081894 A1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Fukuzawa et. al. (US 7275626 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Seki modified by Ogawa teach the rotary damper of Claim 1, wherein the containing portion (X) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (Y) (see WO 2009081894 A1 [Ogawa]; Fig. 22, Annotated Fig. 22 above).
Seki modified by Ogawa does not explicitly teach the rotary damper further comprising an oil passage that is formed in the partition wall to make an oil chamber adjacent to the partition wall, and the insertion portion communicate with each other.
Fukuzawa teaches a rotary damper further comprising an oil passage (52a) that is formed in the partition wall (50) to make an oil chamber (A1) adjacent to the partition wall (50), and the insertion portion (33) communicate with each other, wherein the containing portion (52) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (33) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Fukuzawa with the rotary damper of Seki modified by Ogawa in order to increase the amount of flow allowed between one side and the other, making the rotary damper require less force and have a smoother turn in one direction of rotating (see US 7275626 B2 [Fukuzawa]; 8:57-67, 9: 38-49).
Regarding Claim 7, Seki modified by Ogawa teach the rotary damper of Claim 1 wherein the containing portion (X) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (Y) and the face of the groove facing the shaft part is an inclined surface (see WO 2009081894 A1 [Ogawa]; Fig. 22, Annotated Fig. 22 above).
Seki modified by Ogawa does not explicitly teach the rotary damper further comprising an oil passage that is formed in the partition wall to make an oil chamber adjacent to the partition wall, and the insertion portion communicate with each other.
Fukuzawa teaches a rotary damper further comprising an oil passage (52a) that is formed in the partition wall (50) to make an oil chamber (A1) adjacent to the partition wall (50), and the insertion portion (33) communicate with each other, wherein the containing portion (52) is disposed on one side of the insertion portion (33) (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Fukuzawa with the rotary damper of Seki modified by Ogawa in order to increase the amount of flow allowed between one side and the other, making the rotary damper require less force and have a smoother turn in one direction of rotating (see US 7275626 B2 [Fukuzawa]; 8:57-67, 9: 38-49).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miura (JP H06193665 A) discloses a rotary damper comprising a partition wall and a groove formed in that partition wall, wherein both ends of the groove have containing portions configured to seal the fluid flow.
Matsumura (US 5276945 A) discloses a rotary damper comprising a number of embodiments of grooves configured to seal/modulate fluid flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights