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.
Claim 5 is 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/058181 A1 to Duerre et al.
US 2022/0333662 A1 is relied upon as an English language translation.
Re-claim 1, Duerre et al. disclose an assembly comprising: a first component (such as element 12) having an opening 18 with an inner circumferential surface (such as at 24), a damping device 10 has a central longitudinal axis, the damping device includes an inner sleeve 14/30 with a bore 32 for fastening the damping device to a second component (i.e. vehicle component), an elastomer body (40 or 64, or spring section 44) fastens the damping body to the first component 12, the elastomer body surrounds an outer circumference of the inner sleeve and supports itself in a pretensioned manner against the inner circumferential surface (see at least paragraph 67 and disclosure of grooves 48 engaging in a positive manner the projections 24, this implies a press fit connection or pretensioned connection), the damping device does not include an outer sleeve.
Re-claim 2, a radially inwardly protruding flange 24 engages a circumferential groove 48 in a positive manner, a first longitudinal length formed along a groove base and along the radially inwardly projecting flange.
Re-claim 6, groove 48 and flange 24 have at least a circular cross sectional shape, both have similar cross sectional contours.
Re-claim 7, the damping device has at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop (such as 52a and 52b).
Re-claim 9, the axial stop is disposed on the elastomer body, the stop is part of the body.
Re-claim 11, the axial stop is disposed at an end side of the damping body, see at least figure 1.
Re-claims 12 and 13, the damping device as two radially outwardly protruding axial stops 52a/52b, disposed at opposite ends.
Re-claim 15, the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop is disposed on a fold of the elastomer body. Fastening section 43a and 43b are interpreted as folds.
Re-claim 16, the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop is adjacent to the elastomer body 44a/44b and a fold 43a/43b of the elastomer body
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2001/0040325 A1 to Wolf.
Re-claim 1, Wolf discloses an assembly comprising: a first component 10 having an opening with an inner circumferential surfaced, a damping device 6 has a central longitudinal axis, the damping device includes an inner sleeve 8 with a bore for fastening the damping device to a second component 18/23, an elastomer body 14 fastens the damping body to the first component 10, the elastomer body surrounds an outer circumference of the inner sleeve and supports itself in a pretensioned manner against the inner circumferential surface (see figures 3 and 4, note figure 3 and bulging section of groove 20, this is pressed against the flange when installed), the damping device does not include an outer sleeve.
Re-claim 2, a radially inwardly protruding flange engages a circumferential groove 20 in a positive manner, a first longitudinal length formed along a groove base and along the radially inwardly projecting flange.
Re-claim 6, a groove and a flange have at least a circular cross sectional shape, both have similar cross sectional contours.
Re-claim 7, the damping device has at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop (such as either surface 28, 31 or 17). Although surface 17 is indicated as not contacting surface 18 during normal operational loads, a sufficient load beyond maximum loading will cause impact.
Re-claim 9, the axial stop is disposed on the elastomer body, the stop is part of the body.
Re-claim 10, having assigned surface 17 as the axial stop, a longitudinal distance of the stop surface 17 to a second component 18 is less than an overlap distance between the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop and the first component 10.
Re-claim 11, the axial stop is disposed at an end side of the damping body, see at least figure 3.
Re-claims 12 and 13, the damping device as two radially outwardly protruding axial stops 28/31, disposed at opposite ends.
Re-claim 15, the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop is disposed on a fold (recess 13) of the elastomer body.
Re-claim 16, the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop is adjacent to the elastomer body 14 and a fold 13 of the elastomer body.
Re-claim 17, the second component is arranged axially adjacent the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop. Discs 18 and 23 are load connection fittings, each are disposed adjacent the axial stops 17/28 and 31 of the elastomer body.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerre et al.
Re-claims 3-5, the instant claims recite dimensions and dimensional relationship, the selection of which are interpreted as being within the ability of those skilled in the art, particularly during routine experimentation to arrive at values best suited for the condition. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon routine experimentation when having selected dimensions and dimensional relationships for the damping device of Duerre et al., thus maximizing the effectiveness of the damping body.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf.
Re-claims 3-5, the instant claims recite dimensions and dimensional relationship, the selection of which are interpreted as being within the ability of those skilled in the art, particularly during routine experimentation to arrive at values best suited for the condition. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon routine experimentation when having selected dimensions and dimensional relationships for the damping device of Wolf, thus maximizing the effectiveness of the damping body.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerre et al. in view of US 2003/0222384 A1 to Kato et al.
Re-claims 8 and 14, Duerre et al. fail to teach the radially outwardly protruding axial stop having mounting slots that extend in a radial direction, or the mounting slots being arranged equidistant from each other with respect to the central longitudinal axis.
Kato et al. teach a damping assembly having an elastomer body with axial end stops. The end stops are provided with equidistant mounting slots 42 extending in a radial direction (see figure 6B). The slots provide space for deformation of the end stop, thereby reducing problems during contact (see paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the end stops of Duerre et al. with equidistantly radially extending mounting slots as taught by Kato et al., thereby reducing contact problems between the end stops and a facing component.
Re-claim 10, Duerre et al. teaches a second component (such as part of a vehicle component) with a stop surface. However, Duerre et al. fail to teach a longitudinal distance between the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop and the stop surface being less than or equal to an overlap distance between the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop and the first component.
Kato et al. teach a longitudinal distance (such as “b”, see figures 6B and 6C) between at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop 34 and a stop surface being less than or equal to an overlap distance between the at least one radially outwardly protruding axial stop and a first component 20. Having a small longitudinal distance provides a quick impact time with the axial stop, thus preventing unwanted longitudinal movement of the damper assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when having provided the axial stop of Duerre et al. with a minimal longitudinal distance (or gap) with the stop surface as suggested in Kato et al., thus minimizing longitudinal movement of the damper assembly.
Re-claim 17, Duerre et al. shows a vehicle component 33 spaced from the damper assembly, and an arrangement with a vehicle component (see paragraph 8).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Kato et al.
Re-claims 8 and 14, Wolf fails to teach the radially outwardly protruding axial stop having mounting slots that extend in a radial direction, or the mounting slots being arranged equidistant from each other with respect to the central longitudinal axis.
Kato et al. teach a damping assembly having an elastomer body with axial end stops. The end stops are provided with equidistant mounting slots 42 extending in a radial direction (see figure 6B). The slots provide space for deformation of the end stop, thereby reducing problems during contact (see paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the end stops of Wolf with equidistantly extending mounting slots as taught by Kato et al., thereby reducing contact problems between the end stops and a facing component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pusch and Nakatsukasa each teach a damping assembly.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights